[almostgotcaught]

> There _is_ a process, which optimises for holding people as long as possible for the prison industrial complex to make money

"due process" is what you are due - it is what is afforded to you by the 4th amendment and habeus corpus. Op is correct.

[pjc50]

However, the US has long been very clear: constitutional rights only apply to citizens. US law is perfectly happy with arbitrary brutality towards non-citizens.

(ECHR is different on this, which has caused a lot of controversy in the UK from people who want to be arbitrarily brutal towards non-citizens)

[almostgotcaught]

> constitutional rights only apply to citizens.

This isn't true and what I wish more than anything in life is if people would stop repeating unadulterated propaganda because that literally normalizes it.

> The Court reasoned that aliens physically present in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8...

And don't try to gotcha me either - yes the same article says they have qualified the extent of those rights but

1. The qualifications are not "you have to be a citizen" but whether you "developed substantial ties to this country."

2. This woman had a work visa - I'd call that pretty substantial ties

[jcranmer]

> However, the US has long been very clear: constitutional rights only apply to citizens.

Nope, most of the constitutional rights apply to all people under the jurisdiction of the US. It's why the Bush administration set up Guantanamo--to try to evade any hint of constitutional protection, and he still failed that. (Of course, as Guantanamo also shows, the remedies available to people whose constitutional rights have been grossly violated by the government are quite lacking.)

[Aspos]

> constitutional rights apply to all people

Not within 100 miles of the border unfortunately. https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...

[motorest]

> Not within 100 miles of the border unfortunately.

Taken from your link:

> In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. No matter what CBP officers and Border Patrol agents think, our Constitution applies throughout the United States, including within this “100-mile border zone.”

It seems that non-US citizen still have rights, but abuse is rampant within the US border patrol.

[tptacek]

I'm waiting for 'jcranmer to respond to this, because it was a response to this claim years ago that started me following him, but, no: the "100 miles from the border constitution-free zone" thing is a myth.

[jcranmer]

I wasn't planning on responding to this, because the sibling comment already points out that the ACLU's own explainer page is walking back its original description of it as the "Constitution-free zone".

Although while I'm here, I will note that they still don't discuss the fact that--as far as I can tell--all the regulations and laws means the 100 miles start not from the water's edge, but from the international boundary, which is 12 miles out to sea. And which also means Chicago is not in the 100 mile border zone, since the actual Canadian border is on the side of Michigan, well over 100 miles away.

[tptacek]

That's what I remember about your comment! The extreme maritime border nerdery.

[canucker2016]

...except at border crossings (which may be at a US border crossing or at an international port of entry like an airport gate where US customs has a checkpoint).

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may search any electronic devices without probable cause at these points.

see https://informationsecurity.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toru...

and

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/usa-border-phones-search-1.4...

Canada doesn't behave this way - https://www.harrisonpensa.com/new-limits-imposed-on-border-s...

[freehorse]

I was disagreeing that it is just a matter of some officials doing a bad job. And in any case it is not about who is right or wrong, OP is right in identifying that there is no due process, and I did not disagree with that.