A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (1 Viewer)

[NWRatCon]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

 

[Terryj]

This is an issue with many variables, 1) The Federal government is responsible for immigration, not the States, the States ceded that power when they became a State. 2) Does the Federal government have the right to arrest people who break federal laws? 3) Does "We the people" as draft in the preamble to the Constitution mean "All people regardless of citizenship" or does it mean "U.S. citizens" ? 4) The 14th amendment says All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Does this pertain to just U.S. citizens or does it mean all people citizens or not?

 

[NWRatCon]

This is an issue with many variables, 1) The Federal government is responsible for immigration, not the States, the States ceded that power when they became a State. 2) Does the Federal government have the right to arrest people who break federal laws? 3) Does "We the people" as draft in the preamble to the Constitution mean "All people regardless of citizenship" or does it mean "U.S. citizens" ? 4) The 14th amendment says All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Does this pertain to just U.S. citizens or does it mean all people citizens or not?

Personally, I think you're mixing in unnecessary variables. Most of your questions are inapplicable, except the last. I'll rephrase slightly to make the point: Neither the United States, nor shall any State, deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I think the plain language answers your question. (And the Supreme Court, until recently, would agree.)

 

[ClaraD]

This is an issue with many variables, 1) The Federal government is responsible for immigration, not the States, the States ceded that power when they became a State. 2) Does the Federal government have the right to arrest people who break federal laws? 3) Does "We the people" as draft in the preamble to the Constitution mean "All people regardless of citizenship" or does it mean "U.S. citizens" ? 4) The 14th amendment says All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Does this pertain to just U.S. citizens or does it mean all people citizens or not?

any person...question for you...are immigrants persons?

 

[ClaraD]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

Good question. Do they have the right to arrest? Yes, but since we also give terrorists the right to due process the very least is to provide due process to immigrants that are detained. Yes, we need to give them that right to redress when they are detained for what seems to be indefinate periods, months, years, whatever....and that redress should not be to an immigration agent...it needs to go before the IJ and that immigrant if facing life or death needs an attorney.

 

[danielpalos]

Personally, I think you're mixing in unnecessary variables. Most of your questions are inapplicable, except the last. I'll rephrase slightly to make the point: Neither the United States, nor shall any State, deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I think the plain language answers your question. (And the Supreme Court, until recently, would agree.)

Simply apprehending them for any perceived violation of US jurisdiction meets the criteria.

 

[calamity]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

I believe this should be the case. Also, we see that DHS is operating illegally at the moment. That status alone should help anyone facing a court battle with them today.

 

[Mycroft]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

The problem is this: There is a backlog of immigration hearing cases that stretch into years in the future.

So...should a person, say...an illegal alien, be allowed to roam around the country for years before their case comes up for a hearing? I don't think so. Should that person be incarcerated for years before their case comes up for a hearing? I don't think so. (An exception would be in the case of violent criminals. They can rot in jail, for all I care.)

My solution is simple: Give them a court date...even if it is five years in the future...and ship them back to their own country. If they want to appear in court, they can. If not, they can stay where they are.

 

[ClaraD]

The problem is this: There is a backlog of immigration hearing cases that stretch into years in the future.

So...should a person, say...an illegal alien, be allowed to roam around the country for years before their case comes up for a hearing? I don't think so. Should that person be incarcerated for years before their case comes up for a hearing? I don't think so. (An exception would be in the case of violent criminals. They can rot in jail, for all I care.)

My solution is simple: Give them a court date...even if it is five years in the future...and ship them back to their own country. If they want to appear in court, they can. If not, they can stay where they are.

it doesn't work that way.

 

[Empirica]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

What the US Constitution does is require the US government to enforce all immigration laws to the letter.

And any government employee, appointed judge, or elected official who refuses should be held legally accountable.

 

[Overitall]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

I’m still trying figure out where in “We the people of the United States” does the word immigrant show up.

 

[Empirica]

I’m still trying figure out where in “We the people of the United States” does the word immigrant show up.

I totally get the "Immigration" part but what I don't get is the whole "Illegal Immigration" fiasco.

Deport them immediately if not sooner and declare them forever ineligible for future US Citizenship.

Illegal Immigration will never end until the US secures its borders and induces mass self-deportation.

 

[Mycroft]

it doesn't work that way.

It could.

In the meantime, we are left with two undesirable options.

Take your pick.

 

[Overitall]

I totally get the "Immigration" part but what I don't get is the whole "Illegal Immigration" fiasco.

Deport them immediately if not sooner and declare them forever ineligible for future US Citizenship.

Illegal Immigration will never end until the US secures its borders and induces mass self-deportation.

I see your point but up until immigrants take the oath of the United States citizenship they remain solely citizens of the country from which they came. They are not part of we the people. IMHO.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Illegal entry should be treated as a violation of the law but let the punishment fit the crime.
Most countries treat it as "unauthorized". It is a civil violation, and the punishment may involve immediate deportation if the person is convicted of one or more crimes, certainly above that of a minor misdemeanor.
It may also only involve fines and more paperwork instead, and reporting requirements with deadlines for finishing and/or correcting the process, with steps involved in determining if the entrant has the potential to be here with authorization, and demands to fulfill those requirements if so.

Employers are not held responsible enough for screening, and the tools for them to use if they try are paltry and clumsy.
All of this is for a very obvious reason:
This administration, like many before it, LOVES illegal immigration. But they love it on an altogether bigger level.

If all illegal immigration or entry were to magically drop to ZERO tomorrow, it would result in waves of catastrophic bankruptcies followed by a bigger wave of lawsuits by the industry that this administration PROPS UP in true fascist style.
This administration has catapulted the profit-based private detentions and corrections industries to levels several orders of magnitude above anything in our history. This industry is to Trump what The Carlyle Group was to Bush43.

The Trump Camp is not out to fix illegal immigration, they're making more money than God off it, at taxpayer expense.
We are underwriting concentration camps.
The issue is whether or not a person is here with authorization from federal and state governments.
The shortest, cheapest, most efficient route is to correct the situation when possible.
There must be a bar of merit applied if for no other reason than almost every other country does it.
But moreover, we do have the right to demand a certain amount of net socio-economic positives.
These should be reasonable, and so should administrative fees and penalties.
If they are refugees, they must be processed by a uniform method, and we also have the right to set limits on numbers of refugees admitted for processing.

 

[Integrityrespec]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

We have clear laws regarding entering the country illegally and remaining here under the same conditions. Those here illegally are charged and prosecuted until those laws.

 

[ClaraD]

I see your point but up until immigrants take the oath of the United States citizenship they remain solely citizens of the country from which they came. They are not part of we the people. IMHO.

one problem with that...they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US....and are people in every sense of the word...if they weren't subject to our jurisdiction, we could not arrest or charge them.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'm still working my way through the new discussion board system. It appears that one can only show ALL ignored content if one clicks "show ignored content", and that is too much for my delicate stomach. There's a reason I use the function.... (But, I have gotten the gist of the idiocy, and the lack of substance to so many responses.)

Here's the fundamental point: rights are guaranteed under the Constitution for a reason. People who aren't subject to the constraints of the government don't need those guarantees. It's really that simple. It's only when the government seeks to use its authority that those "rights" become relevant.

I don't give a flying fig how or why someone is in the United States, and that is immaterial to the issue. What IS material is what this nation stands for, and that is, relevant here: equal justice under law, as provided by our Constitution. ANYONE subject to the laws of the United States (and that includes all persons present within its borders) are entitled to the basic rights enshrined in that document. That's a central tenet of our society.

Under our laws a person here without authorization is not a criminal. We haven't made it a crime. Even ENTERING without authorization is only a misdemeanor. 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Incarcerating someone indefinitely (especially children) is not something that is consonant with our values. The only way to check that abuse is through the court system, which necessitates having access to some reasonable form of due process. Imagine being a US citizen detained erroneously for MONTHS or even YEARS with no opportunity to challenge that detention. Is that an American value? I don't think so. It is no different for anyone else, and that is what our Constitution guarantees.

 

[Court Jester]

I totally get the "Immigration" part but what I don't get is the whole "Illegal Immigration" fiasco.

Deport them immediately if not sooner and declare them forever ineligible for future US Citizenship.

Illegal Immigration will never end until the US secures its borders and induces mass self-deportation.

Exactly, 100% correct!

Don't detain them, do what we used to do and put them on a bus and deport them. Any process or claims they have for assylum or other, they can do from their own countries, or from a country which will allow them to say like Mexico does.

I also like the forever ineligible part. They try again, and then you prosecute them and put them in prison. And for any who have forged IDs or stolen SS numbers they will NEVER be allowed to apply for immigration or be allowed in the country. We do that and we not only fix this broken system, but we also now can focus on the good immigrant hopefuls, the ones who respect the law and the process. The ones who aren't as soon as they come here breaking laws and then continuing to break laws. Those immigrants deserve to be at the front of the line.

 

[Overitall]

one problem with that...they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US....and are people in every sense of the word...if they weren't subject to our jurisdiction, we could not arrest or charge them.

No Clara they are guests in our country. If you were a guest in my home and violated my rules I can toss you out on your butt without a thought about your rights because you simply don’t have any. You have privileges. You’re subject to my jurisdiction because I allowed you to enter my home.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

it doesn't work that way.

I agree, it should however

 

[NotreDame]

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional (The Hill, Opinion).

A fundamental aspect of "due process" is the opportunity to be heard. The Ninth Circuit has raised that issue with regard to immigration arrests, and I think it is a valid one that deserves to be a addressed. Immigration detainees are incarcerated for indefinite periods - months, years - with no meaningful opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. That, I think, is a fundamental problem.

IMHO, while there may be legitimate reasons to distinguish immigration cases from criminal cases, the fundamental Fourth Amendment considerations regarding "seizure" still apply. The Fourth Amendment is intended to safeguard against unchecked government power. We, as a society, have deemed it a fundamental right within our borders. It's not a matter of citizenship, it is a matter of presence: if we want to contend we have the legal authority to assert jurisdiction, we must comport our behavior to our fundamental principles.

The 4th Amendemnt is probably not the proper amendment to litigate this claim. The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause regarding the deprivation of liberty, which is what is at issue, is the proper amendment to litigate this claim.

What you said reminds me of Scalia’s dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld where he explores the long history of “liberty” from indefinite detention, and that is enshrined in Due Process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

This is an issue with many variables, 1) The Federal government is responsible for immigration, not the States, the States ceded that power when they became a State. 2) Does the Federal government have the right to arrest people who break federal laws? 3) Does "We the people" as draft in the preamble to the Constitution mean "All people regardless of citizenship" or does it mean "U.S. citizens" ? 4) The 14th amendment says All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Does this pertain to just U.S. citizens or does it mean all people citizens or not?

Plain text reading. Due Process Clause says “person,” not “ citizen.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

I’m still trying figure out where in “We the people of the United States” does the word immigrant show up.

The preamble is just that, a preamble. The preamble is not a declaration of rights. Neither is the preamble an expression of who the rights are applicable to under the Constitution.

The text of the amendments are what matters. The Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments are applicable to a “person,” which includes a citizen and non-citizen.

“No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OrphanSlug]

You guys need to read the case to find out why this is coming up.