Whether or not someone is a citizen is a complete red herring. Plenty of non citizens are in the US legally. Why even bring that talking point up?

▲

throwaway290 a day ago | parent [-]

Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported. Which is basically normal in many countries except maybe EU. I for sure know of people who got deported after committing crimes or even just administrative wrongdoings while being on legal visas

What you can say US should hold itself to higher standard and how trump does it is absolutely wrong... Then I agree

Yoo can also say that right wingers move goalposts by first saying "only illegal migrants get deported" then saying "even legal migrants pending citizenship can get deported if they commit a crime" then "any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it" which happens but it's usually hard to get somebody for moving goalposts in a real life argument.

But saying "whether someone is a citizen or not" is irrelevant is wrong because for US citizens is very relevant

▲

estearum a day ago | parent [-]

> Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported

This has always been true in the US, and is increasingly not true now. The data is extremely clear on this.

> any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it

This is only true with an asterisk which makes it not applicable to the current situation. In the US, even non-citizens (even the subset of illegal non-citizens) have due process rights, which the Trump admin is systematically violating.

"Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution.

▲

throwaway290 a day ago | parent [-]

Show the data then. Seriously. I couldn't find examples of deports of US citizens OR non citizens who did not commit crime or administrative wrongdoing.

> non-citizens have due process rights

Yes, so now you said US should hold itself to higher standard. And I already said I agree with it.

> "Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution.

If true then this looks like another great point that is lost into the abyss because the whole thread was killed. which part of constitution?

▲

amanaplanacanal a day ago | parent | next [-]

The fifth amendment. Everybody is allowed due process. Only a judge or jury can decide whether someone has violated the law.

	▲	throwaway290 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you

▲

estearum 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Almost none of the recent detainees have serious criminal convictions.

The vast majority of detainees have no criminal conviction at all (spoiler alert: because you already get fucking deported when you commit a crime in the US if you're here illegally... OBVIOUSLY.)

Nearly half don't even have pending criminal charges.

https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi...

It's hard to know how many don't have administrative violations, but we do know they're routinely arresting people who are literally at the administrative proceedings to manage their immigration status. Such people are almost by definition following the law. We also know the Trump administration has cancelled hundreds of thousands (millions now?) of legal immigration statuses and declared previously legal people to be illegal overnight.

Every set of handcuffs and every seat on a plane for a non-criminal is one removed from the alleged hordes of violent illegal criminals who are overrunning our cities. We already saw during the first Trump administration that his "aggressive" immigration posture actually increased the processing time for actually dangerous/violent people because it stuffed the processing queues with all sorts of people who were causing no trouble to begin with.

> which part of constitution [gives due process rights to non-citizens]

The same part that gives it to citizens: The 5th Amendment.

> No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The writers knew that "no person" was a different scope than "no citizen," because in other parts of the document they identify citizens and non-citizens, where appropriate.

In fact it obviously functionally makes no sense to limit due process to citizens, because otherwise an autocrat could eliminate a citizen's due process rights (and all other Constitutional rights) simply be declaring them to be illegal and precluding them from a hearing to determine otherwise.

▲

throwaway290 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry to be pedantic but your article points out that x% have convictions, xx% have no convictions, and does not take into account who of them are illegal (undocumented).

I don't ask for much, is there a specific story of ONE case where somebody was deported (not detained) who is - US citizen or - legal document immigrant with no crimes and violations?

if you give me that then I will use this next time when arguing with right wing ppl I know. thanks

	▲	estearum 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure: Andy Hernandez Romero, who is among hundreds and perhaps thousands of completely rule-following asylum seekers who have been deported without due process in violation of our own Constitution and asylum laws.