What’s likely is that she was offered more generous compensation in return for things this. This is pretty standard stuff. What “threats and consequences” are you suggesting?
> 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
> 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.)
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).
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
> 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.
It’s sad that these posts of relevant facts - that are only presented as such, with no judgement - are being downvoted, apparently because they don’t supportive a narrative. One of the things I’ve always loved about Hacker News was how the community was so curious about truth. I guess all good things come to an end at some point.
Then how come the UK has left the European Union?
This is a common misunderstanding, but a misunderstanding nonetheless. Any country in the EU has full sovereignty and chooses to exercise it by combining forces with other countries in order to strengthen their combined influence in the wider world.
>Then how come the UK has left the European Union?
Are you suggesting that if the European Union were post-Westphalian that the UK wouldn't be able to leave? Not sure how that follows. That the EU is a post-Westphalian system is not a new idea.
fair point, I’m just a bit tired of people falsely claiming countries give up sovereignty by joining the EU.
Thought you were making a point in that direction, but today we need to stay together and stay strong.
I'm not sure what I would be called, but institutionalizing the perpetuation of a particular party using hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars through propaganda, favors, and kickbacks not only domestically but internationally is not my idea of good government.
In 2021 a survey by the Pew Research Center found that about 4.5% of U.S. adults identify as gay, but when asked what percentage of the population they believe is gay, Americans on average estimated around 20%. Similarly, a study from Britain's NHS found that British youths were 50 times more likely to suffer from gender distress since 2011. To back that up, Reuters worked with Komodo Health recently and found a 3 times increase the diagnosis of gender dysphoria from 2017 - 2021.
So with this context as a backdrop, and knowing that fascists and their money were behind it, did they manipulate narratives to create an impression amongst Americans that there are 5 times as many gay people as there actually are? And did they also create a sudden surge in demand for gender affirming care?
Tactically, how did they go about that? Did they takeover Hollywood? The media? Was their plan to create a narrative that normalizes the fringe so as to ignite hatred towards that fringe? Sounds like a pretty clever chess game.
Billionaires experiencing midlife crisis and andropause started receiving gender affirming care, the same enjoyed by the military and law enforcement for decades, were courted by the fringe to amplify their ideas to disaffected people failed by the institutions that created those billionaires. The fruit of your individual merit is threatened by these chemically altered silver-spoon fed man-children threatened by mortality filling the greedy black hole in their psyche with your unexamined acceptance. But feel free to instead focus your ire on the current analog for "the Rootless Cosmopolitan" that is the source of all of your perceived discomforts. Make no mistake, I understand that there is a greedy black hole in the minds of many, and for some, it is filled by adopting ideas considered secret unacceptable truths contrary to the unwell mainstream that finds them despicable. You're not sick, they are, and there is only one cure-all solution. But at last, your brave difficult truths are told openly and you are emancipated from the shadows! Congratulations and good luck trampling the few to build monuments for the even fewer.
I wonder how much of the success pseudo gender “science” had in undermining the scientific and medical communities was attributed to the centralization of science authority in the federal government. It makes me wonder if there shouldn’t be a separation of science and state.
When the federal government takes somewhere between 50% and 100% of the income tax payed by a state's citizens simply to give it back to the state with strings attached, that is a straightforward undermining of the state being able to act on its own.
In general, it's amazing how reliably crypto-authoritarian points are prefixed with "I don't see how". It exploits our natural advantage to assume good faith and difficulty understanding, rather than a willful ignoring of coercion.
Sure, but the GP you were replying to was focused on the risk of states losing federal funding and how that leverage is making many act differently in response.
