The one person who was deported without meeting the standards of due process was twice legally established as not in the country legally.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
"The one person"? You think all those other people who were jammed onto planes got due process first?
If we knew nothing about anyone, it might be suspicious. If we were finding dozens, I'd expect more. That the news has reported the life story of a bunch of people and the courts stepped in for exactly one exception comes pretty darn close to proving the rule.
So this is essentially the "outlaw" argument: that if one breaks the law in any way, they cannot rely on the protection of the law. We can put aside for a moment the fact this would leave us in a wild-west lethal hellscape. The argument doesn't hold water here for several reasons;
Firstly and most obviously: these people have not been found guilty of any crime. The most we have for some of them is innocuous tattoos, clothes, or rock-music gestures.
A reminder: it's not illegal to seek asylum, so long as one presents oneself through the right channels. At least 2 dozen of these people did exactly that. So they did not "bypass legal process" when migrating.
Secondly: "due process" is the application of proper judicial procedure by the state towards accused individuals. There is no judicial "due process" code of conduct required of random civilians. So the idea we're only applying it at the "tail end" if we want the state to follow it...is completely idiotic. We want to apply it exactly where it is meant to apply.
The relevant codes of conduct for ordinary people are civil and criminal law. Which 1) have their own legal restitutions set out, which don't include the suspension of due process; and 2) were not shown to be broken by these people anyway.
Thirdly: Due process is specifically about how to ascertain guilt or innocence for those accused of crime; what rights still apply; appeals and notice in that circumstance etc. So if you're arguing that due process shouldn't apply of someone is accused of failing to follow procedure... well, that's the whole goddamn point of it, so you're essentially saying you just don't believe in due process full stop.
Fourthly: let's follow the train of logic anyway. Donald Trump is a felon. A sex abuser and fraudster. Can I assume that if you want due process suspended if someone is guilty of a crime (or even merely accused), then you'll be fine with Trump thrown in prison for these things, courts-be-damned?
In short, it's a dogshit argument.
We know for a fact most of these people had no criminal charge. Received no notice of a change in status. Had no opportunity to challenge. These have been established in federal courts as rights under due process.
If you were never allowed in, you've never had a legal status to change, never had an opportunity to commit a crime, and yet you are due none of those processes because you're not allowed here in the first place. Telling me people detained at the border by CBP had no criminal charges is utterly meaningless.
You already know that at least some of these people were legally residing in the US. Multiple federal courts have established they are entitled to several processes that were not followed.
No. The Supreme Court was explicit that the Venezuelan detainees were entitled to several rights: judicial review, including as to whether they're actually gang members; notice and the opportunity to seek habeas relief before removal occurs. 238 people were denied these.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,746
- 3,319
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Over 200 people were deported without meeting the standards of due process. Only 1 was specifically confirmed by the government to have been deported in error.
No, they weren't. 238 total Venezuelans were sent to El Salvador:
Some fraction of those 238 were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, did get their chance at habeas relief, and were rejected. The Supreme Court statement you are referencing explicitly says that happened, and also says the government did not contest their right to judicial review.
Some fraction were deported under normal immigration procedures.
Some never actually made it into the US to have these rights at all.
You are smooshing the stories of three separate groups into one.
Feel free to read: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Garcia is a totally different kettle of fish. It's not just due process; its deliberately countermanding the direction that a court has created. Due process is only half the issue here
What we do know is that a bunch of people were rolled up due to claims of being in a gang. Very little evidence was provided for the majority. Trump pretended they were terrorist which means he think he doesn't need to provide evidence. We will see if this holds up. I actually doubt it because the Supreme Court couldn't find the rule of law even if one of the aides wrote it in front of them
Normal deportation procedures would have sent them to Venezuela. Trump was just making money for himself
The government didn't legally contest their right to it. The government also didn't actually accommodate it. We know their statuses changed without notice. We know they were deported before the chance to challenge.
You seem here to be implying that the Supreme Court states that all those deported under the AEA made (or had the chance to make) habeas petitions and those petitions were rejected. That's not what it says and that's not what happened. 5 detainees made a habeas petition alongside a class-action on 14th March. It was drawn up by lawyers in anticipation, as the AEA invocation hadn't even been made public at the time. They were not rejected; the Plaintiffs dismissed them to allow the D.C. court to deal exclusively with the class-action. They were then taken to airports on the morning of 15th March.
That's not notice. That's not an opportunity to pursue habeas-- had lawyers not anticipated that the administration would be issuing a declaration and then stuffing them onto planes that same morning, there couldn't have been a petition under habeas or anything else until after they were gone.
K, 137 then.