[dragonwriter]

> As a former MAGA it's just mind boggling to watch all the supposedly freedom loving GOP base clamor for mass digital surveillance and gestapo immigration raids.

Both (sweeping away due process for mass deportation, and eliminating restrictions on law enforcement and surveillance in the name of “law and order” generally) were both major promises of Trump’s 2024 campaign and things that he made steps toward limited by institutional forces (courts, political resistance including in some cases from old-line Republicans, etc.), which Trump and the MAGA movement derided as deep state traitors, during his 2017-2021 term.

Kind of surprising to see someone who describes themselves as ex-MAGA who is surprised that the GOP under Trump supports these things.

[mbostleman]

> sweeping away due process for mass deportation…>

This is pretty off topic obviously but I see this due process claim a lot and I am assuming I’m missing some kind of fundamental legal concepts. And that wouldn’t be surprising because I have no legal background.

If a person is not a citizen, and they’ve overstayed whatever limit there is to staying while not being a citizen, and if the action taken is to remove the person from the country - what role does due process play?

Proof of citizenship seems like it should be a pretty cut and dried thing to determine. It shouldn’t require a court proceeding should it?

If the accusation was like theft or murder and/or the action taken was imprisonment or fines, that would be a different story.

But this is like being escorted out of a movie theater if you can’t present your ticket.

[burnout1540]

If ICE arrested you, would it be fair for them to deport you before you were able to present evidence that you're a citizen?

Due process doesn't mean a full trial. At its most fundamental level, it simply means having a fair process. Of course there's a whole set of case law behind determining what is fair, and a lot of that depends on the type and severity of the case.

But what happens if all that fairness and case law is ignored? Without due process (such as a hearing with a judge), how do you prove you're a citizen? Who do you even present your evidence to? How can you even gather your evidence if you're locked away in a cell?

When people argue for due process (which is a constitutional right), this is what they're arguing for. They're arguing that a single government employee should not be able to deport them without a fair process. Which is a constitutional right for all people (not just citizens), per the 14th amendment.

[sgentle]

I think there are 3 fundamental misapprehensions that someone who thinks in abstract systems (like software) tends to make when considering about a human system (like the law).

1. The system doesn't make mistakes

2. The system represents the underlying reality

3. The system can be implemented

Let's see how that plays out here:

1. You're a US citizen. While returning from an overseas trip, a border agent thinks it's a bit weird that you have 3 laptops and flags you for extra screening. Unfortunately, the box for "extra screening" was right next to "fraudulent passport" and they checked the wrong one. You say you're a US citizen. The box says you aren't. No due process? Straight to gitmo.

2. You're in the US on a work visa sponsored by your benevolent megalithic software company. Unfortunately, they engage in some right-sizing by sizing you right out the door with zero notice. It's policy for immigration to retroactively extend your status if you find another sponsor or a different visa. But, on paper, the moment you were terminated you lost your legal status. And, just your luck, immigration agents are waiting outside as you carry your stuff to your car. No due process? Straight to gitmo.

3. You've never had a passport because you grew up in the US and have never travelled internationally. An immigration agent stops you and asks you for proof of your status. All you have is your old (pre-REAL ID) driver's license, but the agent says those are easily faked. Maybe you could go to your parents' house to look for your birth certificate, but the agent wants proof now. No due process? Straight to gitmo.

[josephcsible]

> on paper, the moment you were terminated you lost your legal status

That's not true. There's a 60 day grace period after your employment ends during which you still have your legal status: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/...

[sgentle]

My bad. Looks like that changed in 2017 and I had out of date information. I will say that "may eliminate or shorten this 60-day period as a matter of discretion" means the scenario is still just as plausible:

https://natlawreview.com/article/notices-appear-ntas-being-i...

[20after4]

4. A birth certificate is just a piece of paper. I'm pretty sure that is not enough, on it's own, to prove citizenship.

5. The new administration is seeking to deny the validity of birthright citizenship. The implication of that would be that you are now required to have one or more parent's birth certificates in addition to your own, and probably several other documents.

5a. How many people carry their birth certificate around with them? 5b. What happens if the ICE agent conveniently loses your papers? Ooops.

[dragonwriter]

> If the accusation was like theft or murder and/or the action taken was imprisonment or fines, that would be a different story.

Detention of indefinite duration followed at some arbitrary time by removal, often to a country to which the subject has no previous connection, does not speak the language, and in which they have in some cases no access to the necessities of life (and in some cases where they are subsequently imprisoned in a prison that the operating government proudly claims “no one who goes in ever gets out” by agreement between the US government and the foreign country) is in no way less serious than imprisonment and fines (indeed, it often is literally imprisonment, and in some cases it has been a very swift death sentence.)

[dmix]

US Supreme court has ruled there is due process for illegal immigrants and reaffirmed it in various case law since immigration law became a thing over a century ago. The US was founded on natural rights principals which apply to every person in the country, not just citizens. The right to due process is not something congress can touch via new immigration laws even if they wanted (absent maybe a constitutional amendment).

[terminalshort]

They are entitled to exactly the same due process as anyone else charged with the same crime, but what the particular due process is for a particular crime or civil proceeding can be changed.

[dmix]

In so many words yes. The law you're being charged with can imply different procedures, but generally requires the same fundamental rights and also generally falls into some pretty broad buckets (civil, criminal, military, immigration, bankruptcy etc).

Immigration law demands they be given appropriate notice and opportunity to challenge it in front of a judge (+ appeals), but it doesn't give every person the right to something like a lengthy jury trial as in criminal law for example.

But all law ultimately involves tests of how reasonable is was, appropriate interpretations by judges, and it's chaotic nature will have failures over time that either needs to improved upon through legislative branch or be killed off by judicial branch as violating some higher rights like the constitution.

[terminalshort]

> Immigration law demands...

Exactly. And just like I said, this law can be changed by those who wrote it.

[dmix]

If by "those who wrote it" = multiple layers of government branches involving hundreds of different people at any one time and many thousands of real cases testing the law each year a under long slow moving history of precedence, under a set of hard limits of constitutional and administrative law, then yes, you could reduce it to that one sentence if you don't appreciate the nuance of law

[qingcharles]

If you moved to another country, and the police grabbed you on the street, would you like to have a hearing to find out why and dispute their findings before they shipped you away to Africa to never see your spouse and children again?

You need due process even for outsiders.

[malcolmgreaves]

The government has to prove in court what they claim. That’s due process for deportation.

And to be blunt, immigration court is already played loose and fast by the government. It’s a civil proceeding, so the accused is not provided a lawyer for free. They don’t always make sure they explain what’s happening to the person in a language that they understand. So the government often gets what it wants when it goes to immigration court.

The Republicans not following the law is the point.

[dmix]

> They don’t always make sure they explain what’s happening to the person in a language that they understand.

FWIW ICE detention facilities and removal proceedings in immigration courts are required to provide translators by US law, at no cost. https://www.ice.gov/detain/language-access

The main issue with due process with the current admin is the time pressure they are putting on the detainee by flying them to another state and rushing the deportation, which makes access to time lawyers difficult. Which is something the Supreme Court has already taken issue with.

[hnpolicestate]

Ex-MAGA can range all the way back to 2016. You assumed 2024. I last voted in 2020. Not that it matters. But to clarify.