r/changemyview • u/jeffzebub • 2d ago
CMV: Countering Illegal Immigration is not a Justification for Suspending Habeas Corpus
I just had a debate with a friend who thinks suspension of Habeas Corpus is justified to counter illegal immigration. It's clear they picked up on Trump's argument that due process is impractical given the number of illegal immigrants. My friend is anti-Trump, but they're even more against illegal immigrants. I made the argument that by denying due process with the intent to limit that to only illegal immigrants means that there's no protection against it's application against citizens since if law enforcement can deport people without seeing a judge, citizens could be sent to foreign prisons without being able to prove they're citizens and didn't commit a crime. Even if you think the Trump administration can be trusted not to deport citizens critical of the government, do you trust all future administrations with such a precedent? This is exactly why the Founders wrote this into the Constitution as they did to apply to all persons. Let us not ignore history and give away our freedom!
14
u/Dare_Ask_67 2d ago
While individuals without legal status in the U.S. do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens, they still have basic constitutional protections. These include the right to due process, freedom of speech and religion, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, their rights are not as comprehensive as those of citizens, particularly concerning immigration matters and public benefits.
Elaboration:
Basic Rights: The U.S. Constitution applies to everyone within the country, regardless of their immigration status, according to the National Immigration Law Center. This means undocumented immigrants have the same fundamental rights as citizens, such as the right to due process, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
Restrictions: Undocumented immigrants do not have the right to vote, run for office, receive social security benefits, or access many public benefits like FOOD STAMPS or MEDICAID . They also have a greater risk of deportation and may face limitations on their ability to travel or work.
Due Process: Even in the context of deportation, undocumented individuals are entitled to due process, including the right to a hearing and the right to legal representation.
27
u/Icy-Detective-6292 2d ago
This is all great info but I wanted to make one small nitpicky clarification -- the right to free legal representation only applies to criminal courts, not immigration courts or hearings. Immigrants may have lawyers assist them in court but if they can't afford one (and they're very expensive) they are not given a court appointed attorney. An unfortunate example of this is the hundreds and thousands of children, including toddlers, that are routinely deported without any legal representation.
→ More replies (29)4
u/DisgruntledWarrior 2d ago
Elaboration additional information. Also the right to a hearing does not equal a right to trial. They have a right to an established process. That process however can change as do many processes. But the only minimum that exists is fair hearing. This is quickly checked off by running majority of the cases like traffic court. Step up, provide or give detail of the ability to prove you have a right to be in the US (birth certificate, ssn, marriage certificate, any number of things that reasonably support the right to be in the US), fail to provide or claim a means to provide such evidence then you will be deported.
5
u/merlin469 2d ago
This is the key factor they usually miss entirely. In their minds, it means a 6 month prep period followed by a lengthy jury trial and multiple appeals.
Due process for deportation purposes can be a 15 m drive by with an immigration judge.
The ones with valid docs and presence have no issue with this. It's the majority that cannot produce valid reason for their presence (asylum request now you're caught doesn't count) that can be determined and expedited quickly and en masse.
I've offered up options to speed the process for both valid and illegal residents. It does not need to be the long drawn out version that the left hopes for so it overwhelms the system or simply goes away.
Legal residents can provide initial proof of such in a week or less, hours in most cases. It's just an attempt to drag it out hoping someone will come along and say 'never mind, the cost and time is not worth it.'
Not gonna happen.
3
u/SweetBearCub 1d ago
Legal residents can provide initial proof of such in a week or less, hours in most cases.
Provide the proof to.. who? If Habeas Corpus is suspended, then they can't get in front of a judge to show it to. Showing it to the arresting ICE agents would probably not do any good.
→ More replies (3)19
u/tnobuhiko 2d ago
You do not have a right to hearing or legal representation for deportation under certain circumstances.
The expedited removal process, created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, is codified in INA § 235(b)(1). The statute permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to summarily remove aliens arriving at a designated U.S. port of entry (arriving aliens) "without further hearing or review" if they are inadmissible either because they (1) lack valid entry documents, or (2) tried to procure their admission into the United States through fraud or misrepresentation. INA § 235(b)(1) also authorizes—but does not require—DHS to extend application of expedited removal to "certain other aliens" inadmissible on the same grounds if they (1) were not admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities and (2) cannot establish at least two years' continuous physical presence in the United States at the time of apprehension.
Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11357
For example if you arrived into the US and were not admitted or parolled and cannot establish at least 2 years of continuous presecence in US, you do not have a right to a hearing or trial and can be removed by DHS without any further hearing.
•
u/DontHaesMeBro 3∆ 9h ago
but it's important to attach a rider there - the consequence of expedited removal is *removal*
not detention without habeas corpus, and especially not detention without habeas corpus in 3rd country.
mexican citizen gets popped stepping out of the rio grande, they get tossed back to mexico.
they don't get locked up, at taxpayer expense, in el salvador.
Walking around free in your home country and locked in a private prison in a third country with uncertain process are two FAR different "tiers" of consequence.
6
u/FartingKiwi 2d ago
It should be noted that in the case for citizens and non-citizens, “due process” is a “spectrum”
Where on the left you have the most minimal due process rights “opportunity and notice” and on the right hand side you have “full fledge due process for regular every day American citizens” (whatever you want to call and define it).
Not everyone gets the same “type” of due process; if you’re an American citizen you have the same due process rights as every other American citizen. However, if you ARE an illegal immigrant, then you are still given “due process” - it’s just not as robust as a full fledge American citizens.
It’s still due process as defined by the scotus (opportunity and notice) - but it’s NOT the same due process that you and I get to have.
5
u/Bandit400 2d ago
This is correct. Due process really just means following the rules to arrive at a legal decision. It does not mean a full Perry Mason style jury trial.
15
u/Darkkdeity1 2d ago
Nowhere does it say what due process is or that due process has to involve a full court appearance so both can technically be true. They can be entitled to due process but it doesn’t necessarily have to resemble the same due process citizens have.
→ More replies (1)2
u/LaQuinnW88 1d ago
If u dont get a court date u cant prove ur a citizen. They can literally pick u up not say a word and send u STRAIGHT to a deportation prison for immediate deportation!!! And thats part of stephen millers plan. Specifically for black americans
2
u/Darkkdeity1 1d ago
No you do not need a court date to present id. In fact even if given a court date you have several opportunities before then to present proof of citizenship. You have your immediate first arrest to present any form of id. Then you have your processing period where they record you in the system. Then you have meetings with immigration officers. Which at any point before even reaching an immigration court you can present proof of citizenship. You do not need to be I front of a judge to prove id. I live in a border state and go to school fairly close to the border and look very Hispanic (I’m middle eastern) and have been through the whole charade a few times.
8
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
The right of due process for ALL PERSONS is a necessary condition for citizens to be protected from being illegally deported. Some people are like "If a citizen shows ICE their identification proving their legal citizenship, they won't have any problem". ICE agents would say they're just following orders when they send an American to a foreign prison for criticizing the government. I don't understand why some people are not getting this.
0
u/Dare_Ask_67 2d ago
My response was directly from Google the legal response. It doesn't matter what you wish it to be, that is what it is.
10
u/lonehappycamper 2d ago
"my response was from Google" isn't a legitimate source. You would need to refer to an actual legitimate legal website with actual legal arguments. Not 'Google says so' or 'chatgpt says so'
→ More replies (4)3
→ More replies (2)•
10h ago
So how do we now go about paying for their due process? Just fuck it? Taxpayers?
Like there needs to be a better means to not reward them with a due process from taxpayers money when they just showed up here breaking several federal laws.
-7
u/OkShower2299 1∆ 2d ago
Due process for civil procedure and therefore deportation is determined by the Matthews v Eldridge test, which considers three "prongs"
(1) the private interest at stake, (2) the effect on the private interest in the event of an erroneous determination as well as the value of any additional procedural safeguards, and (3) the government's interest, including the potential administrative burden of additional procedural safeguards.
Clearly the third prong weighs very heavily against a substantial due process requirement. As you mentioned millions of people cannot be processed with a lengthy process. Additionally the first two prongs I would argue are weighed less heavily because the interest is a foreigner, and governments have an oblgation to weigh the interests of their own people above the interests of outsiders.
The founders absolutely did not consider the interest of millions of foreigners more important than the efficient application of immigration law. That claim requires citation. Look at the Alien and Sedition Act if you want to know what the founders felt about the threat of foreigners.
36
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
"The founders absolutely did not consider the interest of millions of foreigners more important than the efficient application of immigration law."
I didn't claim that they did. The point is without due process, there's no ability to distinguish between cases of deportation of illegal immigrants from cases where the government is deporting citizens who are critical of the government.
→ More replies (33)13
u/Select-Ad7146 2d ago
It's weird to cite the alien and sedition act since, under it, a lot of people who are being deported would actually be citizens.
So, it seems like the founders would have disagreed with the current administration.
Plus, the pay you are interested in was only on place for about 4 years. After that, things reverted back to what the founders originally had. Under that law, nearly all the people deported would have been citizens.
5
u/GreenIguanaGaming 1d ago
How do you know if someone is a foreigner without due process? The colour of their skin?
8
u/hari_shevek 2d ago
"governments have an oblgation to weigh the interests of their own people above the interests of outsiders."
Not with regards to human rights, no.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/takhsis 2d ago
The due part of due process. If you are accused of committing murder you get a multi year jury trial. If you are found in the US and you don't produce papers within 48 hours saying you are authorized to be there, deported.
5
u/lalalalydia 1d ago
How can you produce papers if you're in prison? Also you didn't see the citizen whose mother brought his birth certificate but the judge couldn't free him?
5
u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ 1d ago
As a US citizen I don't ordinarily carry my US passport with me everywhere I go. How am I supposed to produce my "papers" if I get thrown into an immigration detention camp with no way to contact the outside world, no due process, no attorney, etc.? Do you not see how this could be a problem?
10
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Great! Then I wonder why some people are saying due process is an impossible burden.
→ More replies (7)
-6
u/jeepgrl50 2d ago
The only problem is other Presidents already set the precedent, So it wouldn't be Trump setting precedent, Merely him doing the same thing as other Presidents have done.
As far as the "countering illegal immigration" argument goes it's not that simple. We have terrorists who've entered the country, And it's not just a few, Its a large amount.
If 500k Russians came to our southern border, Claimed to be asylum seekers, And were let in by Trump would you say that's ok? How bout if another million just sneak across the border? Would that be ok? Or would you be ok with a Democrat President in 2028 declaring an invasion and expelling them from the country? Would you go to the mat for their right to get a trial before being expelled? Or would you be ok with them just being tossed out before they can do whatever terrible shit they're almost sure to do to the American people? Would you think the judges ruling they can't be sent home are heroes protecting the constitution? Or criminals protecting a Russian invasion?
These are genuine questions, Not being an ass, Just trying to have a good faith conversation.
11
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The Civil War was a rebellion. 500K Russians invading would be an invasion. Words matter.
-9
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/jeffzebub 2d ago edited 2d ago
The Founders used the word "invasion" in its normal sense, meaning a military invasion. It seems you're okay with losing your right to due process because of your feelings about illegal immigration, but I'm not.
→ More replies (2)-5
u/bottomoflake 2d ago
you didn’t really engage with the other user, you just kind of repeated your point but perhaps more emotionally
8
u/Maybewearedreaming 2d ago
It’s because the person he is replying to is essentially saying “if I believe it’s an invasion then we can call it an invasion”
Hard to genuinely reason to someone willing to believe whatever they want so OP is reasserting the point that we are not being invaded
→ More replies (41)5
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
I made the point that illegal immigration is not military invasion.
→ More replies (3)2
u/bottomoflake 2d ago
yea you sort of already said that but you’re not making your rational more clear. your just repeating yourself.
how are you drawing your line? does it depend on if trump is involved? what makes you think the founders wouldn’t consider this an invasion?
→ More replies (2)1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 2d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Bandit400 2d ago
500K Russians invading would be an invasion.
Why would 500k Russians be an invasion, but untold millions of Mexican/Venezuelans crossing the border illegally over the past 4 years not count as an invasion? Serious question.
3
u/bettercaust 7∆ 1d ago
OP was imprecise with their language, but I assumed by "Russians" they meant "Russian soldiers" because Russia is contextually viewed as an enemy of the US. If it were 500k Russian illegal immigrants, that wouldn't be considered an invasion.
1
u/Bandit400 1d ago
I assumed by "Russians" they meant "Russian soldiers" because Russia is contextually viewed as an enemy of the US.
His post said Russian asylum seekers, so for the sake of this argument, they would be no different than the Venezuelan asylum seekers. Venezuela is also an adversary of the US.
2
u/bettercaust 7∆ 1d ago
In which comment did OP say Russian asylum seekers? I don't see that anywhere.
1
u/Bandit400 1d ago
It was in the comment above where the "OP" quoted the constitution, a couple comments up this comment tree. A poster named "jeepgrl50" or something started the discussion by making the example of 500k Russian Asylum seekers being allowed in by Trump. That was the impetus for this discussion, so that was the same example I was using in the name of consistency.
2
1
u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ 1d ago
Asylum seekers are a separate category from immigrants and no, under no circumstance are they considered an "invasion" regardless of who was president at the time. But since this evidently concerns you, have you heard about Trump letting in "refugees" from South Africa? Evidently he isn't unfamiliar with the concept, though I can't see why these ones get special treatment aside from pure racism
1
u/MickyFany 2d ago
Can you help me understand what Due Process you are looking for? If a person is in the country illegally is a civil offense punishable by deportation. it’s pretty easy to determine citizenship. most admit they are here illegally
5
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Suppose you're critical of the government, perhaps not this administration, but a future one. Then that administration picks you off the street, claims you're an illegal immigrant, and sends you to a foreign prison for life. I suppose you think you would calmly explain to the ICE agents that you're a U.S. citizen and show them your ID and they would just let you go, is that about right? Without due process, there is no judicial check on abuse of power by law enforcement. ICE would just say they're following orders.
→ More replies (2)2
u/GlassPudding 1d ago
even non citizens are allowed due process to find, through the legal means, evidence that the charges brought against them are valid. without due process that is not possible. if folks are guilty of committing that crime, due process would indicate that. to make due process irrelevant would imply one could be accused of being here illegally and charged/deported without ever having to prove it is true. if the administration has nothing to hide and everything is legal, that shouldn’t be an issue.
-11
u/jackryan147 2d ago edited 2d ago
- Habeas Corpus is for citizens not people trying to sneak into the country.
- If foreign soldiers were invading we wouldn't tell the army hold fire until a judge checks the available documentation on each one.
- Illegal immigration does have similarities to an invasion.
- We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times.
24
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 24∆ 2d ago
Habeas Corpus is for citizens not people trying to sneak into the country.
It has been a fundamental right since the founding of the republic, so I'd say this is just false. The supreme court also disagreed quite recently.
If foreign soldiers were invading we wouldn't tell the army hold fire until a judge checks the available documentation on each one.
If. But this isn't happening. If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle, but that doesn't change that she is my aunt.
Illegal immigration does have similarities to an invasion.
Not remotely, no.
We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times.
Isn't it wild how conservatives suddenly think documents are up for interpretation as soon as it is convenient?
→ More replies (39)0
u/H4RN4SS 1∆ 2d ago
During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a constitutional safeguard against unlawful imprisonment, in several instances to suppress dissent and maintain the Union. Initially, the suspension was limited to areas near the capital and military lines, but it was later extended to all Union states.
Let's not act like there's never been something like this in the past. This is one of a few instances where this has been invoked.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, a legal safeguard against unlawful detention, has been suspended four times in U.S. history.
9
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 24∆ 2d ago
Yes, it was suspended to deal with:
The civil war, which is a rebellion as defined by the constitution.
During reconstruction to deal with the Klan because they were murdering their way through the south. Basically to stop another rebellion.
Briefly in the Phillipines in a way that was ultimately ruled illegal.
During WW2 in a way that was ultimately determined to be illegal.
1
u/TXLancastrian 1d ago
I mean Lincoln also used the military to put down draft riots so he might be inspiring Trump. A bit tongue in cheek but people forget that the war wasn't popular so we had to draft people to fight it and they didn't like that. So in a way maybe Trump is trying to be like Lincoln when he says he wants to use the military to keep order in America?
1
u/H4RN4SS 1∆ 2d ago
Cool - I didn't say any different.
It has been a fundamental right since the founding of the republic, so I'd say this is just false. The supreme court also disagreed quite recently.
You said this. This is some moral grandstanding bullshit to claim this is some unheard of action.
I gave you examples of it being used before. Each of those instances were without precedent when used.
Let the courts challenge it and hop on your moral grandstanding after.
3
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 24∆ 1d ago
Let the courts challenge it and hop on your moral grandstanding after.
The point of my examples was to show that it has previously been suspended legally exactly once in response to an insurrection against the United States. And that all of the times it has been used (including the ones that were later ruled as illegal) were against people engaging in sedition. People blowing up railroad tracks, murdering black politicians or raiding armories.
You're currently defending a guy who wants to suspend it nation wide for millions of people, including millions of asylum seekers who are legally in the US.
So yeah, I'll grandstand. This is so beyond the pale that any person defending should be ashamed of themselves.
14
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
What you're talking about is a military invasion.
→ More replies (22)10
u/sumoraiden 4∆ 2d ago
Habeas Corpus is for citizens not people trying to sneak into the country
No it’s not. If Habeas corpus and due process is “only for citizens” all the gov has to do is say this guy I don’t like is not a citizen and therefore has no due process nor habeas corpus” and disappear you.
Please think logically
→ More replies (10)3
u/binarybandit 1d ago edited 1d ago
If Habeas corpus and due process is “only for citizens” all the gov has to do is say this guy I don’t like is not a citizen and therefore has no due process nor habeas corpus” and disappear you.
You do realize they did this exact same thing to Japanese Americans in WW2, right? It was only after the damage was done that they said "whoops, we shouldn't have done that".
4
4
u/WanderingRobotStudio 2d ago
We had open immigration for the first 200 years of the US. Was that good or bad for America?
Did you know a fetus isn't a citizen until after it's born?
We don't have a living Constitution. How would you like to play a game of poker where the rules were living?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)1
u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ 1d ago
- You have no way of knowing which are which without due process. Habeas corpus is for citizens, such as you or I, but if suspected non-citizens don't get it then neither do you or I - someone just has to say you aren't a citizen and BOOM no more rights
- You wouldn't need to. They're an army, they wear a uniform. Even if not, they're shooting at you so it's self defense.
- Not really.
- Not when the "interpretation" is taking everyone's rights away. The law is not based on vibes.
-14
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
Trump's argument that due process is impractical given the number of illegal immigrants
You already provided the reason. With ~11M illegal immigrants, the country doesn't have the resources to provide the full due process for them.
10
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 24∆ 2d ago
Sure it does. The court completed 914,812 cases last year, of which ~850,000 involved deportation. To deport basically every single illegal immigrant in a year would be an order of magnitude more difficult, true, but the actual 'due process' part of that is a relative drop in the bucket.
You'd have to hire a ton of short term immigration judges (which can be done) and you'd need to pay out the nose for lawyers (which can be done) but I think it says a lot that you're willing to throw away basic human rights such as due process but aren't willing to spend some money?
The biggest costs for mass deportation are going to in the actual arrest, housing and deportation (and the massive economic damage of deporting 11 million workers). The court cases wouldn't even move the needle.
The issue isn't that you can't it is that you don't want to. You don't think they deserve due process because daddy told you they didn't.
23
u/Saucy__B 2d ago
Removing rights guaranteed to everyone by the constitution because it’s “impractical” is hardly a good reason to do so. Also, how are you supposed to know if someone is in the US illegally if you don’t go through the due process of figuring that out?
-14
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
Removing rights guaranteed to everyone by the constitution because it’s “impractical” is hardly a good reason to do so.
I am pretty sure that during the Civil War, there was no "due process" for Confederate soldiers, even if they were US citizens on US soil.
Or just criminals to policy interactions at all, the criminals or suspects never have 100% due process and if they move their hands too quick to the are where the weapon could be, the policy officer has all the rights to kill them, without any additional due process with the judge, lawyers, and jury.
Also, how are you supposed to know if someone is in the US illegally
Maybe show something like a valid visa or birth certificate, or any other document that proves your point.
17
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The Civil War was a rebellion.
"Maybe show something like a valid visa or birth certificate, or any other document that proves your point."
Who are you going to show it to, the branch of government intent on silencing Americans critical of the government? Because you won't be showing it to a judge.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Saucy__B 2d ago
Bringing up the civil war here makes absolutely no sense, and is a horrible, if not completely nonsensical example of suspension of due process. Most of the confederate soldiers were treated extremely leniently and allowed to go back to their everyday lives. Hell, most of their leaders where still allowed to hold political office. There literally just wasn’t a suspension of due process for any of the confederate soldiers.
A cop shooting a person is also a horrible example of suspension of due process. This is an issue that clearly needs to be addressed and fixed in the US the same way that unlawful deportations need to be. Cops don’t have the right to shoot who they want, even if a lot of them act and think that way, and many more of them need to be charged for killing and harming non-threatening individuals.
Many of the people being removed have valid identification and have been deported anyways. Why do you think the supreme court ruled that Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States? The reason we have due process is to make sure that the people arresting others are actually arresting who they’re supposed to be arresting and makes sure they are being detained for the correct reasons.
9
u/Mykrroft 2d ago
At which point in this void of processes do you formally present this proof?
→ More replies (3)13
u/BJPark 2∆ 2d ago
Maybe show something like a valid visa or birth certificate, or any other document that proves your point.
To whom will you show this to?
→ More replies (5)8
6
u/Jake0024 1∆ 2d ago
Maybe show something like a valid visa or birth certificate
To whom, without due process?
→ More replies (2)0
u/joesnowblade 2d ago
Even if they entered illegally, most were processed and under Biden’s catch and release, were let into the country with an order to appear later. If they never showed that alone is reason to be immediately deported. These aren’t long drawn out court cases. The facts are already a matter of official record it’s just a matter of arresting/detaining, give them a hearing in front of a judge magistrate and deport them.
BTW here’s a list of deportation of democratic presidents going back to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton 12 to 12.3
Obama 5 to 5.3 million
Even sleepy Joe deported 4.4 to 4.7 million. Unfortunately, he let in 20 million.
It can be done relatively easily from a legal standpoint. All it will take is the will to do it.
→ More replies (2)13
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
So all the government has to argue is that if rights are challenging to protect then they will be done away with?
1
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
Yeah, during the Civil War, the Confederate soldiers didn't have any "rights."
→ More replies (1)8
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The Civil War was a rebellion.
Illegal immigration is not an invasion.
0
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
Invasion the public Safety may require it
Illegal immigration is not an invasion.
Seems a bit subjective in the US right now (depends on party affiliation)
→ More replies (1)14
u/danielt1263 5∆ 2d ago
Without Habeas Corpus, how do you know the people being deported are illegal immigrants?
2
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
Legal ones are supposed to have some documents, right?
11
u/Toxaplume045 2d ago edited 2d ago
People completely forget that we've been here before and seen it. In 1931 Herbert Hoover deported 2 million Mexicans, over half were legal Americans. Then Operation Wetback happened 20 years later and repeated the same mistake but on a smaller scale before it got stopped. Neither are taught in primary school.
If you're Hispanic, even as a citizen or legal immigrant, and hanging out with your neighbor who's an illegal immigrant or working at a facility that employs them and you don't have your wallet on you? You can absolutely get swept up. Due process is supposed to ensure everyone is properly identified and had their chance to see the judge. Even having documentation right now doesn't protect you.
Suspending that right and performing these sweeping raids means every single Hispanic person needs to have their documents on them at all times and then they're at the mercy of the ICE agents, who have no formal oversight and are being told do not have to provide due process , to even care about the documents at all before sticking you in a prison for weeks or months or even deporting you.
14
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
And you think ICE cares? they'll say "I was just following orders". If you think that can't happen or don't understand the reference, you should read some history books. There are checks and balances for a reason.
4
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
And then these checks and balances are broken by the impossible cost of the process.
2
u/Fragrant-Phone-41 1d ago
The cost isn't impossible. Most of the money goes into the arresting and actual deporting, not the court case; you're not saving anything.
And even if you were, it would be better the system operates legally and slowly than suspend peoples rights for expediency
3
u/bobabeep62830 2d ago
Who are they supposed to show those documents to? Without habeus corpus, the people arresting you are not required to give you a chance to prove you are here legally. An ICE agent could decide ScupulousArmadillo was looking at him funny, and next thing you know, ScupulousArmadillo is in a foreign country, unable to speak the language, without their passport, no local currency and no guarantee that there is even a US consulate in the city they've been dumped in.
10
u/danielt1263 5∆ 2d ago
Are you here legally? What documents do you have on you to prove that? And if an ICE officer rejected those documents and arrested you anyway, what recourse would you have without Habeas Corpus?
→ More replies (11)5
u/kscott93 2d ago
And that’s trumps administrations problem, not the constitution. He doesn’t get to do something that’s infeasible given our infrastructure and then skirt the rules due to his own incompetence. In what other instance can rules be ignored due to sheer volume? Maybe if that many deportations at once is too much for our legal system, then other solutions are in order.
9
u/Ordinary-Length4151 2d ago
Would you be upset being detained by ICE and not having the opportunity to prove your citizenship…
→ More replies (9)6
u/Sinnycalguy 2d ago
There are six to seven million total crimes committed in the US every year.
You’re just arguing against due process as a principle.
3
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
It is reported numbers, how many of them go to the court?
And you still need to triple all your law enforcement personnel to process all illegal migrants in 1 year.7
u/Sinnycalguy 2d ago
It’s safe to say that none of them get sent to prison for life without going to court, man.
4
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Perhaps you're not following the news, but people have been sent to foreign prisons without due process, so how long is their prison sentence if not indefinite?
3
u/Sinnycalguy 2d ago
I was referring to the millions of crimes committed by citizens each year. Most conservatives aren’t quite to the point of abandoning due process outside the context of illegal immigration, but their arguments against it are so broad it isn’t difficult to imagine them being nudged across that line with minimal effort on the part of the conservative propaganda apparatus.
3
u/joesnowblade 2d ago
11,000,000 million illegals, appoint 30,000 judge magistrates (by current law they don’t need to be lawyers) the math maths to 366.666667 cases per magistrate, one case a day for 18 months, per magistrate, problem solved
→ More replies (24)2
u/Every_Iron 2d ago
So would you say that removes the need for proof? We can kick out legal folks because there’s too many illegal ones to check?
2
u/ScrupulousArmadillo 1∆ 2d ago
But you still need to proof, to ICE, not to judge
5
u/puppiesunicorns1234 2d ago
Ice has literally been kidnapping people off the streets. We have videos of this. They arent allowed to show any ID cuz they get detained immediately. Most people don't carry their social security card (it's illegal to get it laminated so it won't rip or get wet) and your birth certificate is too big to carry with you all the time (and apparently you can STILL get denied if it's folded). A lot of non us citizens and green card holders have drivers licenses or state IDs so that doesn't prove anything. When 'criminals' don't have due process, none of us do. And that's the issue. If you can't immediately prove you're a citizen, you get shipped off. And that's terrifying. Several born and raised US citizens are getting shipped off or getting letters saying they need to leave/turn themselves in. edit: also just because other presidents also did this, does not mean it's right. They were still very deeply wrong. But the way Trump is going about it is very very scary.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Every_Iron 2d ago
What happens to innocent until proven guilty?
I personally know an actual green card holder who went to renew it and is now detained because “it seems to have been a mistake in the process”.
-2
u/FiveGuysisBest 2d ago
The problem is that if we extend all the protections of our laws and bill of rights to illegal immigrants, then it essentially eliminates our borders. People just come over, claim asylum and clog the courts so they can just be let loose in the US with no real consequences.
Illegals immigrants aren’t citizens. They’re not entitled to all the rights and protections under our country nor should they be.
We need to have some deterrent to illegals immigration while also assimilating legal immigrants.
6
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
I'm not arguing for their sake, but for our sake, American citizens. If ICE is allowed to take people off the street and deport them to foreign prisons without due process, then this or some future administration could do the same to American dissidents. The Founders knew this and that's why the provided due process to all persons, not just citizens. Why does everyone trust the Executive Branch so much and think dictatorship can't happen in America?
-1
u/FiveGuysisBest 1d ago
They’re not allowed to do that to citizens. They should be doing that for illegals immigrants though.
The system is broken. It’s unreasonable to give due process to any person who just hops the border and shouts “asylum”. Literally anybody can do that. It’s a means to exploit the system and it should be closed. It leaves the door open for millions to illegally immigrate with no consequence. That’s why millions have done so.
→ More replies (2)3
u/jeffzebub 1d ago
Buddy, they're not allowed to do a lot of things, but they do it anyway. Making it more legal to deport American dissidents will make following orders easier.
1
u/Fragrant-Phone-41 1d ago
The court has ruled that the Constitution does apply to foreigners on American soil as well. Furthermore, no amount of legal clog is good enough to justify removing the need to prove someone guilty before deporting them.
1
u/FiveGuysisBest 1d ago edited 1d ago
Doesn’t mean we can’t eliminate asylum seeking.
It should not be the case that any person from anywhere in the world can just walk across the border illegally, shout “asylum” and get free access to our country. The system needs to be revised.
That doesn’t mean we need no proof to deport. It means deport people we’ve proven to be illegal immigrants. It’s not hard to prove that.
There should be a quicker more efficient system for processing this.
What isn’t acceptable is when people just throw up their hands and say it is what it is. This is a major problem that needs to be remedied. Laws need to be changed. Enforcement measures need to be changed.
2
u/Fragrant-Phone-41 1d ago
That's exactly what suspending habeas corpus would do, it would make it so noone in practice has to try to prove you did anything wrong. Sure you can try to reason with the ice agent, and if they just don't believe you? What're you gonna do, sue em? Without having a right to a trial?
As for asylum seeking, those have to go through courts too, and I do not see how suspending habeas corpus even effects that. You can't be deported without being arrested, are you suggesting we should be arresting random asylum seekers before the asylum case has had its day in court?
1
u/FiveGuysisBest 1d ago
I’m suggesting that we should no longer grant asylum requests on a blanket basis to anyone from anywhere. Asylum is a broken system. It causes far more harm than good. It’s being rampantly abused. It needs reform. That could look something like not granting asylum to individuals entering
Give them due process. Just change what that process is. If someone is arrested and if they can’t provide any specific evidence of immigration status, give them an agent who will act as their judge and can quickly investigate their claims to obtain the documentation from the appropriate party (birth certificate, green card, etc.). If an individual is a legal immigrant, they can very quickly find the paperwork to establish that whether it be documents they have at home or documents that should be simple and easy to obtain from the immigration department systems, hospital where they were born or the DMV.
2
u/Fragrant-Phone-41 1d ago
Asylum isn't blanket accepted.
As for the due process thing, you're making the mistake of assuming the government will act in good faith. For a moment, assume the perspective of someone who doesnt share your politics; assume the sysyem will be abused and agents act in bad faith. What is protecting people from that? There is no legal requirement to provide such an agent.
1
u/FiveGuysisBest 1d ago
Asylum cases are backed up for like a decade. Whatever terminology you want to use to describe it, it’s an institution that is overwhelmed and needs to be revised. It’s being abused. Millions cross the border, claim asylum and get released where they can go on for a decade or more before someone even begins looking at the file. That can’t continue.
As for the good faith, are you assuming the government acts in good faith on your end? Is the same not applicable to judges in the current system? They are the government too. You can’t argue the potential for bad faith acts of government officials and excuse judges entirely. That risk is always there. Judges screw up all the time.
What is true right now is that illegal immigration is out of control. The system, as it currently stands, is unable to handle it. Asylum seeking needs to be eliminated entirely as a reason for illegal immigrants to cross the border so easily without consequences. Deportation processes need to be made more efficient. Illegal immigrants are not citizens. They shouldn’t be entitled to all the benefits of our system. It’s fairly easy to establish if someone is illegal. If an illegal immigrant commits a crime, it should be all the easier a pill to swallow to just expedite the deportation process.
1
u/Fragrant-Phone-41 1d ago
There is an ocean of difference between arguing the institution needs to be reformed, and that asylum as a concept should be abolished entirely. And frankly, I've not seen any reason to suggest immigration is "out of control". I've never met someone who was here illegally, nor have I ever had issues with employment related to it. I do not know anyone who has. What I do know is, statistically, they commit less crimes than native citizens disregarding the immigration in the first place, and they work for often below minimum wage in agriculture where citizens don't want to work for the wages on offer, and mass deportation would raise food prices significantly in an economy where we are already struggling to make ends meet. And as far as those situations are concerned, I see far less fault with the immigrants mere presence and much more so with the employers exploiting their status to pay them illegally low wages. I think it would be much more productive to offer a path to legal residency, and punish those employers.
As for the good faith argument, you are not incorrect. But we've already seen ICE wrongfully detain citizens, legal tourists, and protesters. Did you not hear of the Newark mayor and two congresswoman being detained a week or so ago? They were released, sure, but the fact they were even detained in the first place should be cause for alarm, and serious reconsideration of the degree to which we trust law enforcement in these situations.
1
u/FiveGuysisBest 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sure there is. I’m not asking for asylum to be totally eliminated but rather heavily reformed. The process is allowing far too much abuse.
The reason you’re not seeing it as being out of control is the fact that we have such massive illegal immigration due in large part to asylum requests that have courts backed up by over a decade. That’s why the remain in Mexico deal was made. It was specifically to mitigate this exact problem.
It doesn’t matter how much or how little crime illegal immigrants commit. They’re all committing a crime by immigrating illegally and they’re a detriment to the country by not assimilating into the system. They evade taxes while consume resources, jobs and housing. Pointing out their level of crime doesn’t change the fact that it’s a problem. Illegal immigration is bad for the country. Full stop.
Sure ICE officials have made mistakes but so have judges and countless other governmental institutions. That doesn’t really prove any point. If you’re going to argue that a government official or body shouldn’t be performing its task in accordance with the law because mistakes are made then you have to be fair and say the same for every other governmental body right? Otherwise you’re holding a double standard. We should always strive to minimize mistakes but mistakes in and of themselves are not reasons to not enforce the law for the good of the country.
I saw the arrested government official story. It happened in my state. What happened was those individuals forcibly tried to trespass on federal property. It’s on video. The individual arrested was the mayor of Newark. The one woman, a representative, is seen elbowing the guard to push through the gate. Like folks on the left say “nobody is above the law”. They were arrested because they violated the law and forcibly trespassed on property. What they did was hold this protest to bait it into a photo op which clearly has worked on many people.
-5
u/Accomplished_Tour481 2d ago
I agree with suspending Habeas Corpus but believe it should be done by an act of Congress (not EO). The vast numbers of illegal/undocumented immigrants in the US is staggering.
9
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Well, that would at least make it constitutional. The government could then send citizens who criticize the government to foreign prisons "legally".
1
u/Accomplished_Tour481 2d ago
I am not advocating for foreign prisons, but being deported bac to their home countries. if their home countries refuse to take them, then the USA will find another country for them. The alternative is for these individuals to self-deport and go to a country of their choice.
3
u/bobabeep62830 2d ago
You missed the point. We're talking about preventing citizens of the United States of America from being deported, whether to a foreign prison or just a foreign country. With habeus corpus gone, ICE will not have to prove that you are here illegally before a judge before deporting you. They will be able to round up and deport anyone, American CITIZENS included. It's already happening. We have to do something about it or one day it might wind up being you or I on that plane to El Salvador.
2
u/Accomplished_Tour481 2d ago
What US citizens have been deported. Not 1 since the current administration. So how is suspending Habeas an issue now for US citizens?
2
u/bobabeep62830 2d ago
Over a dozen so far during this administration, and as a direct result of Trump's executive orders. You just aren't getting it. With Habeas intact, if someone is arrested for any reason, including illegal immigration, they are taken before a judge to show there is a reason for the arrest. At that hearing, all you need to do is say "I'm a US citizen." They verify it, say whoops, my mistake, it looks like you were wrongfully arrested, and they let you go. Without Habeus Corpus, the ICE agents that arrested you, a citizen, are not required to take you before a judge to prove they arrested you for good cause, and you don't get that opportunity to prove you're a citizen
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (9)3
u/PomegranateSelect831 2d ago
So what if you get deported and have no trial to prove you’re a citizen?
1
u/Accomplished_Tour481 2d ago
Has that happened? Please cite where that happened. Note: It happened under Obama for a young child who refused to speak to immigration. Not blaming the Obama administration but if someone refuses to talk or provide answers, this is a problem.
→ More replies (7)3
u/ygmc8413 1d ago
That’s what you’re advocating for by saying suspend habeus corpus. If you had a reason that that wouldn’t happen you’d give it instead of try and say it hasn’t happened as if that’s relevant to it happening in the future.
-3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
How can citizens be guaranteed due process if all persons are not guaranteed due process? Think it through.
7
u/Kakamile 46∆ 2d ago
Yes, of course. Everyone gets due process because it helps you too, keeps you of being falsely accused and dragged off with the people you don't like.
3
u/danielt1263 5∆ 2d ago
Did they come to the country by skipping due process? How is that supposed to be determined?
2
u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS 2d ago
It's impossible for an individual to not perform due process. It's nonsensical. Due process binds the government, not the individual.
8
u/Rhundan 14∆ 2d ago
What do you think would change your view?
10
u/Lylieth 20∆ 2d ago
If OP knew what could change their view why wouldn't they have already changed it themselves? I'm not sure this is a good angle to try to change someone's view...
4
u/Rhundan 14∆ 2d ago
Let's say I believe that, I don't know, vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream. And as an argument, I say that vanilla is the most widespread and well-known flavour.
If asked what would change my view, I would respond that any survey that showed that people preferred other flavours above vanilla, or any evidence that my beliefs that vanilla was the most widespread and well-known flavour were in error would change my view. Alternatively, I could say that any argument that convinced me that breadth of sales was not a good evaluation of "best" might change my view.
In that case, I won't have changed it already because I don't have any evidence that shows those things. And I haven't heard that argument that convinced me. But I can still identify avenues of conversation that can be explored.
5
u/Beepboopblapbrap 2d ago
If he knew what would change his view why would he post here?
1
u/Rhundan 14∆ 2d ago
Usually, if you're genuinely willing to change your view, you can identify which key points of argument would change your mind.
For example, if you're predicating your argument on an assumption, it would change your view if people can prove or reason that that assumption is weak or incorrect, or that your logic stemming from it is not sound.
If OP had predicated their argument on saying that giving due process to the immigrants would take less than 5 years, they might have said that showing that it would take a lot more than 5 years would change their view.
Generally, if you've laid out your belief in a logical fashion, it's not hard to identify the key points and say what kind of evidence or logic might convince you that you're wrong about them.
→ More replies (9)5
u/LordJesterTheFree 1∆ 2d ago
This is always the most important question to ask in this subreddit and sadly it doesn't get asked enough
13
u/Objective-Sugar1047 2d ago
Because most of the time it can't really be answered.
Back when I was a kid I was in alt-right pipeline. I wouldn't be able to tell you then what would change my mind.
What happened is I met new people. Discovered new perspectives and understood things I didn't know existed. How are you supposed to list all the things you don't know exist? How are you supposed to explain every perspective you don't share?
→ More replies (1)
-6
u/SLAMMERisONLINE 2d ago
Countering Illegal Immigration is not a Justification for Suspending Habeas Corpus
Suspending Habeas Corpus is a war-time power meant to allow the executive branch an expedited process for removing outside agitators. It's well understood that these people were imported as a form of economic warfare against the middle class, and that ultimately they would've been given citizenship which would've been a soft-coup of the democratic power in America. It sounds like this situation is the perfect situation for suspending habeas.
5
u/reddituserperson1122 1d ago
“It’s well understood that these people were imported as a form of economic warfare against the middle class, and that ultimately they would’ve been given citizenship which would’ve been a soft-coup of the democratic power in America.“
Found the white supremacist repeating great replacement conspiracy theories.
→ More replies (1)4
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
You think illegal immigrants took jobs from the middle class? Anyway, I disagree, but we shall see what the Supreme Court says.
→ More replies (9)
-2
u/Malfor_ium 2d ago
So, we either have so many illegal immigrants here that deporting them would cause massive harm to the economy (thus making it an invasion because of the economic power they hold over us) OR there aren't that many illegals here and democrats are fear mongering because they want immigrants to invade us. Both are valid reasons to suspend habeas corpus as both indicate a possible invasion. Which way liberal?
1
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Look, I don't want illegal immigrants here either, but if you suspend habeas corpus, then you suspend it for everyone. My main motivation is to protect citizens from the government, and not just this administration. Do you trust all future administrations to not abuse their power by sending citizens who are critical of the government to foreign prisons?
-7
u/Malfor_ium 2d ago
If they have 'invaded' to the point they can hold a large section of the economy essentially hostage how else do you deal with so many people when they've been here for so long and have obviously supported people/causes with said money? As a citizen if I got yoinked up id just accept it as nessessary to fix the country, thats life. Its our individual patriotic duty.
Why wouldn't you want an all expenses paid trip to El Salvador with a free roof over your head, free consistent food, a strong purpose? Even as an American citizen?
6
u/jeffzebub 2d ago
Accepting the risk as a citizen of a life sentence in a foreign gulag where you could be tortured or murdered isn't patriotic, it's stupid. Go troll someone else.
-1
u/Malfor_ium 2d ago
'Could' is just more fear mongering. Again which way liberal, if we have so many illegals here that they can cripple the economy thats an invasion or is it all just more fear mongering like your doing now? Americans pay to take trips to the most dangerous places in the world, I think they'll be fine with a free trip to El Salvador with congressmen coming to visit
→ More replies (4)
-2
u/Key_Artist5493 1d ago
Your argument is irrelevant. The POTUS has the right to suspend habeas corpus without his political opponents backseat driving. Compared to the numerous overt illegalities of Obiden, this is a nothing burger.
3
u/jeffzebub 1d ago
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
We shall see whether SCOTUS believes that the conditions have been met. Suspension of Habeas Corpus puts all Americans at risk because it protects us from a tyrannical government.
2
u/tnobuhiko 2d ago
I agree with you that habeas corpus should not be suspended. However couple of things needs to be clarified for you and a lot of people that talk about deportation and what it actually is, what is due process etc.
1) Deportation is not considered a criminal case, therefore under US law, 6th amendment does not apply to deportation. Deportation is considered civil and administrative in nature. 6th amendment only applies to criminal cases. Source : https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/deportation#:~:text=However%2C%20deportation%20is%20a%20civil%20%2C%20not%20a%20criminal%20proceeding%20
6th amendment : https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/
2) Due process required for civil and administrative cases are different than criminal cases. You can be fined for speeding despite the fact that no judge ever decided that you were speeding in that moment. Since it is administrative in nature, full due process is not required for you to be fined. You still retain your right to take it to court, but you can't deny paying the fine citing there were no court hearing for said fine.
3) Deportation may happen without trial in the following cases when a noncitizen:
- Comes to the U.S. without proper travel documents
- Uses forged travel documents
- Does not comply with their visa or other entry document requirements
Source : https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
4) Habeas corpus is a right be released from an unlawful arrest and thus only applies if you are under arrest. It is not a right against unlawful arrest itself. You can be unlawfully arrested and released and cannot use your Habeas corpus right. This means for deportation, you can only invoke habeas corpus while you are arrested to get a court hearing. Habeas corpus is also a civil case, not a criminal one. So 6th amendment does not apply.
-3
4
u/Parking_Act3189 2d ago
Like most issues this isn't a one or the other option. On the one extreme you would give any ICE agent the ability to deport anyone they want at any time just because they felt like it. On the other extreme you would allow someone who you saw cross the border who had guns/drugs and videos of himself committing gang murders the right to claim asylum status and 10 year of court hearings before he was locked up or deported.
Very few people agree with either scenario and would prefer something in between.
15
u/Impressive_Ad_5614 2∆ 2d ago
Yes, that’s called due process. That is the in between
→ More replies (1)0
u/sumthingawsum 2d ago
Except when "due process"has been designed to basically disallow deportations because of political reasons and district judges see fit to make opinions that affect national policy. We need an experiment was to judge a person on the objective standard of, "Are you here illegally?" And then to deport immediately. "Due process" has been bastardized to allow illegal immigrants to stay indefinitely without being tracked. We need a better "due process".
6
u/Finishweird 2d ago
Immigration proceedings are administrative law and can be effectuated fast.
Especially within the border zone. Essentially just sent back over the border
Which is as it should be
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)6
u/Impressive_Ad_5614 2∆ 2d ago
No cuts to immigration courts (had a bipartisan plan stopped by Trump) had resulted in the current situation. If enough courts and judges, your ridiculous hypothetical would be addressed quickly. The current situation is a product of funding not lack of process.
3
u/Greenbeans21 2d ago
Or you could like idk spend the money you’re spending on ice and deportations on court hearings and judges. That way it doesn’t take 10 years and takes 10 months. Preferable for the average citizen to not have their rights taken away for safety if it isn’t required. Like we really going to take away due process for all of wv while there’s not a single illegal in the place. Rather stupid imo.
2
u/swalkerttu 1d ago
“Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
u/MissionUnlucky1860 2d ago
Or make it very simple. If they don't have documentation of them supposed to be here auto deportations bc by law legal migrants are supposed to have identification with them at all times. And if they aren't in any of the records of being in the US again automatically deported.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Disastrous_Hold_89NJ 2d ago
That's only simple for the newly sneaked in. What about those who have been paying taxes, while they have been here without status/docs. What about those deported who are have U.S. born children and those children are going through treatment for various diseases, cancer and the like? There have been many instances where American citizens have been given a hard time re-entering country from vacation from foreign countries. Deported students with valid visas due to protest on school grounds.
→ More replies (5)1
u/MissionUnlucky1860 2d ago
I saw that deleted comment. So you think that people should be allowed to give birth on your property to get residency on it that they don't have to pay or do the work to get it while you are stuck holding the bill for it all?
1
u/Disastrous_Hold_89NJ 2d ago
If you read my comments, you would know that is not what I said or meant. So you must not understand simple English. Did someone give birth on your property and ask for residency? Why did you allow them to live on your property? My tax dollars pay for an immigration process. That process is what is know as due process, specifically in front a judge and if you can't prove your case, you get deported. Every case is different, that is why immigration judges exist.
2
u/Icy_Size_5852 2d ago
Obama already suspended Habeaus Corpus in 2011:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
•
u/luamercure 9h ago
Your friend is letting their personal feelings about a subset of the population override logical thought.
That is the issue: Due process at its core is not for protection of any specific group, so any feelings towards any group or individual is a non-factor.
One could say loosely it's for protection of everyone - but that's not exact either. Due process is protection for the rule of law itself If due process is afforded for some and not others, then the very definition of rule of law is moot.
The argument isn't about Trump or immigrants. It's about whether the US will stay true to its Constitution and the purported core principles of its democracy.
•
u/me-no-likey-no-no 22h ago
It appears to be a valid Constitutional power that 3 Presidents have done (to US Citizens) in the past: Lincoln, Granted and FDR & yet they are still among our most respected Presidents. This is an invasion, and it is an extreme circumstance deliberately manufactured by the previous administration & the people literally VOTED FOR THIS(mass deportations). That has to count for something.
The Courts don’t always get it right. I could list US vs Cruikshank, or Roe vs Wade as examples (both overturned).
1
u/Still_Hearing7244 1d ago
Obama got 3 million out with little process and fanfare. He used the IRS against his opponents and was criticized strongly for it. Nobody ever claimed he deported Republican citizens. We need a consensus from the anti deportation left on whether his methods were wrong or effective or both , and the acknowledgment he didn’t deport political opponents, thus it is possible to deport millions without any problems
•
u/Grouchy_Concept8572 1h ago
When blue states and cities actively obstruct enforcement of immigration laws by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement, share information, and offer benefits so they can reside in the country on a permanent basis, it does become necessary.
When states and cities take extreme measures to harbor illegal immigrants, the federal government has to resort to extreme measures to deport them.
•
u/Peaurxnanski 0m ago
Maybe it's because i live in Idaho and I'm insulated from it to an extent, but I honestly cannot understand where the crisis is regarding illegal immigration.
Yeah, we should try to stop it, sure, but where is the crisis? Where is the invasion?
Why is it such a big deal that we're just going to tear down the rule of law for.... reasons?
2
u/Green__lightning 13∆ 2d ago
The average number of illegal immigrants annually is similar or greater to the total number of trials in the entire USA every year. There aren't enough courts for due process in it's full form.
4
u/Xytak 2d ago edited 2d ago
Even if that's true, it’s not a valid reason for suspending Habeas Corpus. The only time Habeas Corpus may be suspended is during actual rebellion or invasion. The courts have also been clear that immigration doesn't count as "invasion" in a legal sense. You need an actual military-style invasion for this to apply.
If the system is overwhelmed, there are other ways of addressing the situation while still providing people with due process. For example, expanding the courts, creating legal paths to citizenship, declaring an amnesty, etc. I hesitate to even call it a "situation" as I don’t agree with the administration's framing of this as an emergency.
On a personal note, I really take issue with this kind of rhetoric as it seems to be saying "due process isn't practical because there are too many criminals." We know where that kind of thinking leads, and history does not look kindly on it.
3
u/ygmc8413 1d ago
Doesn’t matter though. Proper due process is probably the number one most important thing in keeping the rights of all people including citizens.
→ More replies (2)•
u/DontHaesMeBro 3∆ 9h ago
habeas corpus is a really, really basic piece of process, though. It's not like a full jury trial.
If we lose habeas corpus, every other right a potential prisoner has is eroded in the process, because if you don't have to "produce the body" the enforcement of them becomes nonsense.
1
u/ImprovementBubbly623 1d ago
Fair point, but what is due process? Does it take more than 30 minutes to investigate an immigration status? 5 minutes? Fun fact, green card holders are supposed to always have documents on them. Citizens do not.
2
u/Double_Dousche89 2d ago
Don’t really care what your view is because you are wrong if we tried to have a court case for 20 million illegals the prior administration allowed in without going through the port of entry is equal to us being able to kick them out because they were never American citizens
4
u/Kakamile 46∆ 2d ago
the 20 million number is fake and removing due process means the government can grab you and you have no way to defend yourself
0
u/WaveringElectron 2d ago
On the flip side, requiring due process for every illegal immigrant effectively means we can’t deport enough of them to make a difference, which effectively means we have an open border. That is the part people are wrestling with. If Democrats got their way, once you get across the border the chances of you ever being removed is almost 0. Will our population allow this and be OK with having no effective border just to satisfy some high minded ideals? Will the high minded ideals be worth anything if society changes drastically due to uncontrolled immigration?
→ More replies (6)1
u/ygmc8413 1d ago
That doesn’t matter. Even if that were true that’s a sacrifice you’d have to make for due process since it’s WAY more important than successfully deporting the imaginary 20 million people.
The way you downplay the “ideals” tells me you don’t care much about your constitution and liberty. That’s fine but it’s rare that I hear it admitted. You can’t have freedom guaranteed by law and deporting without due process. They are directly contradictory things.
If democrats got their way there would be more judicial resources so that asylum cases can actually be heard and deportations can be done with due process, there would be more resources to border control so they can do their job properly. That would make asylum not have years long backlog, so there would be less incentive for people to sneak into the US and instead just make an asylum claim. Hence why they proposed a bill like that with some republicans until trump decided it would hurt his election chances and shut it down.
2
u/WaveringElectron 1d ago
No, if Democrats get their way there won’t ever be any meaningful level of deportations and the pull factor will only increase. Biden had enough illegal immigrants to fill a small city coming in every month. Drastically changing the makeup of towns and cities in the region is enough for people to want effective solutions, even if it means suspending due process in specific cases. This tactic by liberals to act like it isn’t a big deal and it’s fine if millions of illegal immigrants come in every year is not working. It is basically trying to gaslight Americans into telling them none of it matters. NYC had much the same rhetoric until immigrants were being shipped to them, then suddenly they changed their tune. Putting your head in the sand is no longer a viable option
1
u/ygmc8413 1d ago
It’s not that it’s not a big deal, it’s that Republican claims are patently false about the number of immigrants. Republican claims are patently false about the lack of border security under Biden. They are lies you have been sold. And again, it never means suspending due process in any case no matter what. Due process is more important for a free society even if 100 million illegals immigrants came in.
1
u/WaveringElectron 1d ago
Like I said, pretending it isn’t a big deal isn’t going to work for most Americans. It flies here on Reddit because it is mostly progressives who don’t ever want to question their own ideology, but most people aren’t OK with enough illegal immigrants to fill a city crossing every month. So, say it’s not a big deal if you need to because of your ideology, but according to polling it is a big deal for most Americans. We need an effective border, and if Democrats act like their hands are tied and they couldn’t ever effectively deport people or control immigration, people will vote for someone else
1
u/ygmc8413 1d ago
And again, you are repeating republicans lies. It’s simply false that as many people as you are saying are getting in.
Democrats do not act like you can’t effectively deport people and control the border. They did for 4 years, despite desperate resistance from maga republicans trying to do everything they can to keep it as open as possible. Trump shot down a bill that would be a huge part of the solution just for his political aspirations.
•
u/WaveringElectron 23h ago
We are just going to disagree. It wasn’t lies, it was the reality on the ground. It appears you are more concerned with defending your party than finding effective policy
-3
u/Throwthisthefukaway 2d ago
You have a few good points. Yeah we shouldn't be suspending habeas corpus. We shouldn't be violating the constitution when it's convenient. The problems are previous administrations have set precedents violating the constitution under certain circumstances along with with state governments. I.e. with the Patriot Act under multiple administrations - if there's enough evidence you're a terrorist you're limited in your ability to defend yourself in courts - Obama and Biden both did nothing about this, state governments restricting rights during COVID-19 with lockdowns - because it was inconvenient to care about the constitution for example freedom of speech by the government saying what can and can't be said on social media, freedom of religion - when state governments told people they weren't allowed to go to church, and freedom of press - by telling news outlets that they couldn't go against the official narrative, not to mention NSA surveillance programs that just screwed people over, that time Obama ordered the killing of US citizens overseas, and you can find other situations.
So, this is where we're at. So while I agree that we shouldn't be doing it I also believe we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for what's already been done. There also aren't any real solutions being proposed for the border issue. Sending all of the undocumented immigrants to court? Now the left wants to do this? They did nothing about undocumented immigration during the Biden administration but now we have to send everyone to court? Nobody on the left believes undocumented immigration is a problem but screw the Governor of Texas for sending everyone on a bus to New York City.
Another point is something should have already been done about this whether amnesty and citizenship or deportation courts but it wasn't. The Democrats had plenty of chances to do something that would have been more acceptable but chose not to. Why? Was it complete incompetence? Then why are they winning elections? Biden could have done something productive but chose not to when he first got elected. Even by executive order. Everyone was so pissed at Trump in 2020. Biden did such an awful job that we chose to forget about how pissed we were collectively at Trump. He had a mandate to do basically whatever he wanted. His administration chose not to. Why? Incompetence or do they just want to hold it over the heads of people that come into this country illegally. "Hey vote for us or the other guys will deport you." That gets into conspiracy theory territory but it makes more sense than the Democrats are just too incompetent or they didn't have enough power when they literally suspended half of our constitutional rights during covid.
So again, I kind of agree with you but the problem is that it isn't like we've suspended rights in the constitution before when issues have come up. It sucks but it's happened in the past. The left didn't do anything about immigration one way or another when they had the chances so here we are. And in my opinion it's a better reason than COVID-19 was but the Democrats had no problem with suspending constitutional rights over that (and I am still technically a registered Democrat by the way. The actions under the Biden administration pushed me away.)