5 ms·
Due process under the US Constitution protects everyone in the US, not just US citizens.
by ghouse 7mo ago
Due process under the US Constitution protects everyone in the US, not just US citizens.
- rayiner 7mo ago[flagged]
- nyeah 7mo agoThe man clearly states that he is here legally, under a work permit.
- ghouse 7mo agoThe Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy, public trial in criminal prosecutions, protecting defendants from excessive, prejudicial delays between indictment or arrest and trial.
- throwway120385 7mo agoThere's also a line in the Constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment" which this would surely fit.
- guywithahat 7mo agoSure but the courts have ruled that a "speedy trial" can take years (I don't agree with this, it's just what the courts have decided). Additionally if you're not a US citizen you don't necessarily have all the same rights as a citizen, and your case is processed in civil court. Anyone can be detained, and a good judge won't release illegal immigrants from detention since they're just not going to return to court until after their hearing.
- asacrowflies 7mo agoConstitution also garuntees a speedy trial and specifically calls out these type of long detentions without conviction or trial being used as punishment.
- jerlam 7mo agoThis Irish man would probably prefer to be removed from the property (country), instead of being indefinitely detained waiting for a trial whose outcome is already known. The 6th Amendment of the US contains a right to a speedy trial. Otherwise, every arrest can become a life sentence if no trial is ever held.
- rootusrootus 7mo agoThe article says he refused to sign the deportation paperwork, does that not mean that his continued detention is a choice under his control? He could agree to return to Ireland and they would put him on a plane.
- VBprogrammer 7mo agoBefore we even get into the complete lack of morality in forcefully separating a married couple, removing him from his home and his business; you might want to check what happens to people who do agree to be deported. Plenty of examples where this has not at all been as painless as you are implying.
- rayiner 7mo agoSo getting married should be a loophole in the immigration law?
- Terr_ 7mo agoCompare: "The man refused to sign confession-papers, so that means his continued imprisonment is actually a choice under his control. He could simply confess to jaywalking, and they'd rip him away from his family and life and exile him to the streets of another country within a mere day or two. No problem." Abject surrender in the face of threats/violence is always, technically, a fast resolution to anything, but it's not the kind of thing we (or the framers of the Constitution) wanted to optimize for.
- rayiner 7mo ago
- sa-code 7mo agoNot sure if this is intentional ragebait @rayiner Do you understand that justifying his 5 month detention without due process means you are justifying your own 5 month detention without due process?
- rayiner 7mo agoHe is getting due process. He admitted to a federal court that he came to the US in 2009 under a Visa Waiver Program, which is limited to 90 days: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton-ruling.pdf https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10."). By contrast, I'm a naturalized citizen. My dad came here on a valid H visa because he's an expert in public health and a U.S. company wanted to hire someone with his qualifications.
- plagiarist 7mo agoIt is hard to conceive of five months as "speedy" if someone is being detained for the duration. Also: a nation is not a private residence. That's an analogy that irritates me when I see it.
- Psillisp 7mo agoThe State says "Due process" now means your body may be used in the hard labor prison archipelago. How quickly we Rationalize. How shamefully human we are.
- drecked 7mo agoDo they also lock you up on the property for 5 months while they figure out how to remove you from the property? People’s inability to comprehend the need for basic legal rights like Habeas Corpus is incredible. We literally have leaders who don’t know what that means and when challenged on it, don’t even bother to look it up and remain uninformed when asked months later. And fools defend them.
- rayiner 7mo agoThis guy admits he entered under the Visa Waiver Program in 2009, then remained in the country illegally: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton-ruling.pdf https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10."). If he wants to go home, he can just go home under the DOJ's Voluntary Departure Program: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1480811/dl https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1480811/dl
- ktm5j 7mo agoActually, thanks to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that's not exactly true anymore. You can be detained and deported without first seeing a judge.
- nyeah 7mo ago(1) "Judge" is not necessarily identical with "due process." (2) Congress can't override constitutional protections by passing new laws. That would require a constitutional amendment.
- _DeadFred_ 7mo agoAlso 'immigration judge' is not an Article III Judge for the purposes of Constitutional requirements.
- idle_zealot 7mo agoA law cannot overturn the Constitution, you need an Amendment for that. In principle, anyway. If you have a Supreme Court that abdicates its duties then you can do whatever you want, at the cost of legitimacy.
- stackskipton 7mo agoAccording to Congress and blessed by Supreme Court, immigration law is civil, not criminal and therefore all criminal due process law does not apply. It's been that way for over 40 years so yes, according to Congress/SCOTUS, this is legal.
- jshier 7mo agoThe nuances of criminal procedure may not apply, but the fundamental constitutional rights still do, as well as human rights. Indeterminate detention violates both.
- stackskipton 7mo ago
- phonon 7mo agoNot according to the 5th Circuit, sadly.... "The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.” https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-trump-administrations-mandatory-detention-policy/ https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-trump-a...
- rayiner 7mo agoThe statute is exceedingly clear. Subsection (a) first says: "An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission." Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
- jshier 7mo agoThat applies to those who step across the border as part of a border crossing or rescue. The court decision applies it to all aliens, which is the never before applied part of GP.
- rayiner 7mo agoThe whole point of subsection (a)(1) is to treat all aliens similarly to those who cross the border for purposes of the chapter. Subsection (a)(1) is titled "Aliens treated as applicants for admission." Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission." Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- iso1631 7mo agoIt really doesn't. It should of course. But SV cheers it on
- tim-tday 7mo agoI think you misspoke. “Protects” is a statement of fact which does not resemble current facts. “is supposed to protect” would be more accurate. The as built does not currently match the plan provided by the constitution and rule of law. Please see your nearest democratic representative to address the problem.
- ghouse 7mo ago+1 I considered "(is supposed to)" preceding "protect"
- ttfkam 7mo agoIf the Executive Branch doesn't care about the Constitution and inconvenient laws when directing the law enforcement agencies under its control, Congress doesn't hold the executive to account by either withholding funds or threatening impeachment, and the SCOTUS majority doesn't try to rein in these acts while seeming to lack the ability to enforce its own decisions, the words printed on the Constitution are just useless ink. Elections have consequences, and we're all paying them. Some paying a lot more than others.