[ty6853]

Due process here is administrative, not criminal, so the non-citizen isn't entitled to the kind of trial you're thinking he would get were he criminally charged. Due process for an administrative action just means the prescribed process under the law must be followed, which in US immigration means being seen by an executive branch (fake) judge in the immigration kangaroo courts.

[dragonwriter]

> Due process here is administrative, not criminal

While it remains, sadly, Constitutional for the US to enslave people, and the various iterations of statute law abolishing the export slaves first in 1794 and then the slave trade more generally later probably do not bind the operations of the US government only other persons subject to it, the Constitution does require that those enslaved—and those being committed to CECOT are not merely being removed they are being enslaved and trafficked—may only be so enslaved as a punishment for a crime of which they have been duly committed.

So while the actual process in the Alien Enemies Act removals is executive fiat, and the due process under existing law for deportation (which is not afforded in Alien Enemies Act removals) is administrative rather than criminal, the Constitutionally-mandated process for those receiving the sanction being applied in the Alien Enemies Act process is normal criminal process.

[ty6853]

It's an interesting idea, but good luck getting your argument heard. I've been tossed in immigration cell as a US citizen. I filed an FBI records search and there was not even an arrest record or any record of it happening, they just lock you up and that's that without even any process or paperwork. Since it is administrative I did not have the opportunity to talk to a lawyer or even see an immigration judge. They just locked me up and then when they were satisfied with stripping naked and searching me they dumped me on the street.

[giraffe_lady]

Sorry I was using due process in a more lay sense I guess, something along the lines of "the constraints we place on ourselves to limit the risk of accidental harms." None of that will be effective at preventing intentional harms, which is what this is anyway. It wasn't a good word choice on my part I don't think.