[SV_BubbleTime]

In this scenario, are you in the country illegally? If so, how is this any different than an immigration court serving you for a hearing?

I get that immigration law enforcement is all the rage to rage about right now, but is this a threat of AI?

I think the argument you might be trying to make is that based on Kroger submitting you grocery bill and VISA with your totals everywhere else, and the tickets you bought for a comedy show and your vehicle reporting your driving and your phone reporting your location that you are 92% likely to have commuted some crime, pattern matched in a way that only AI could see.

That would be a topic of consideration.

[AlotOfReading]

    In this scenario, are you in the country illegally? If so, how is this any different than an immigration court serving you for a hearing?

The US and most other countries have a legal concept called presumption of innocence, where you're not guilty of illegal actions until you've been through due process. A hearing would be the beginning of due process. An officer showing up at your door is not due process, so you also can't be "illegal" at that point.

[spwa4]

True, but beside the point. Presumption of innocence applies to criminal proceedings, and only to criminal proceedings. If a public prosecutor is trying to land you in jail. No other cases. It does not apply to immigration proceedings, juveniles, tax law, family law, contract law, administrative law ...

A judge is allowed to take the IRS's word, without evidence, that you've violated tax law.

A judge is allowed to take anyone's word, without evidence, or even without a complaint at all, to lock any minor in juvie (which "is not prison"), or take them away from their parents.

A judge is allowed to take the word of a business that someone violated a clause in a contract, without evidence, even if the other party denies it.

The ONLY thing a judge is not allowed to do is to take ONLY the word of a public prosecutor that you've committed a crime. A police testimony or some other form of proof is required to make the difference between guilty and innocent. But nothing else. A judge can add to a sentence because the prosecutor says, without any proof, "he almost hit a girl in the street with his after the robbery", for example.

Of course, a judge, including an immigration judge is ALSO allowed to require proof anyway for any proceeding. However, immigration judges are appointed and fired at will by the state department. So if an immigration judge actually does that, it'll stand, but it'll probably be the his last act as a judge. In other words, if you want this, it needs to be bad enough that the judge is willing to risk/sacrifice their career over it.

[exe34]

> In this scenario, are you in the country illegally? If so, how is this any different than an immigration court serving you for a hearing?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/20/ice-secretly...

I'll go with no.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Pretty intellectually dishonest that you look at “the largest mass deportation campaign in the nations history” which might not even be true since Obama deported 5 million immigrants, but clearly the intent is here. Then to point to one mistaken identity failure as anything but an anecdote.