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.)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?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?
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.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.
Simply apprehending them for any perceived violation of US jurisdiction meets the criteria.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.)
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.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.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.
it doesn't work that way.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.
What the US Constitution does is require the US government to enforce all immigration laws to the letter.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.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 totally get the "Immigration" part but what I don't get is the whole "Illegal Immigration" fiasco.I’m still trying figure out where in “We the people of the United States” does the word immigrant show up.
It could.it doesn't work that way.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
I’m still trying figure out where in “We the people of the United States” does the word immigrant show up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?