re: DOJ Again Refuses to Give Judge Boasberg Sensitive Information on National Security

quote:

---

including due process.

---

so back to an earlier question, should someone apprehended at the border be held for a hearing or deported?

quote:

---

should someone apprehended at the border be held for a hearing or deported?

---

On our side? Hearing.

From the dissents to the case everyone is citing to support Trump

quote:

---

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS has given reasons in his dissenting opinion why he believes that deportation of aliens, without notice and hearing, whether, in peace or war, would be a denial of due process of law. I agree with MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS for many of the reasons he gives that deportation of petitioner without a fair hearing as determined by judicial review is a denial of due process of law.

---

quote:

---

It is undisputed that, in peacetime, an alien is protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228. Federal courts will then determine through habeas corpus whether or not a deportation order is based upon procedures affording due process of law. Vajtauer v. Commissioner, 273 U. S. 103, 273 U. S. 106. In deportation proceedings, due process requires reasonable notice (Tisi v. Tod, 264 U. S. 131, 264 U. S. 134), a fair hearing (Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U. S. 135, 326 U. S. 156; Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 208 U. S. 12; Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460), and an order supported by some evidence. Vajtauer v. Commissioner, supra, p. 273 U. S. 106; Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272, 226 U. S. 274. And see Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454.

The rule of those cases is not restricted to instances where Congress itself has provided for a hearing. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, decided in 1903, so held. The Court in that case held that due process required that deportation be had only after notice and hearing, even though there, as here, the statute prescribed no such procedure, but entrusted the matter wholly to an executive officer. [Footnote 3/2] Consistently with that principle, we held in Bridges v. Wixon, supra, that a violation of the rules governing the hearing could be reached on habeas corpus, even though the rules were prescribed not by Congress, but by the administrative agency in charge of the deportation proceeding. We stated, p. 326 U. S. 154,

"We are dealing here with procedural requirements prescribed for the protection of the alien. Though deportation is not technically a criminal proceeding, it visits a great hardship on the individual and deprives him of the right to stay and live and work in this land of freedom. That deportation is a penalty -- at times a most serious one -- cannot be doubted. Meticulous care must be exercised lest the procedure by which he is deprived of that liberty not meet the essential standards of fairness."

---

This is not some alien concept

quote:

---

You've confirmed the fact that you're an idiot.

---

Did you even read the text I quoted?

Would you prefer a newer ruling from the circuit over Texas?

His daughter advocates and works for groups that assist illegal aliens; giving him information could compromise techniques and tactics used to identify and apprehend illegal aliens; as this judge cannot be trusted to keep that information confidential

So, tell me again how that’s not something that would compromise national security…

We have millions and millions of illegal aliens in this country.
Giving everyone of them due process that a US citizen gets gives you endless court hearings, time for appeals, then appeals to extreme hardship, appeals to improper detainment, appeals to refugee status, appeals to improper application of US laws, appeals to the UN basic human rights codes, appeals upon appeals upon appeals. It would be an anvil on the neck of the judiciary and every lawfirms wet dream. Big money. Thousands of new courts and thousands of lawyers would be needed. Due process is for those who come into this country spending time and effort the right way. Those who establish refugee status. Due process is for American citizens. The rest should be afforded just a little less. If some think that cold so be it.

quote:

---

The Trump admin invoked the Aliens Enemies Act and AUMF in order to unilaterally declare a loosely-defined organization as "terrorists", in order to remove their Due Process rights and to frame this as a military operation.

---

I do. Mainly this lie that your backing. Better question, who is stating this that you are taking her word over the DOJ and the President?

Here is the EO from the White House website:

[quote]LINK ]

quote:

---

It is undisputed that, in peacetime, an alien is protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

---

Is that Ludecke v. Watkins?

Didnt Douglas find himself on the losing end of that argument?

Didnt the Supremes turn down the appeal by an individual whom the government had classified as an “alien enemy” under the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, and allowed his deportment?

Are you really citing a case that agreed with Trumps actions, as an example of why it is illegal?

Nice try

No, its really not

quote:

---

We have millions and millions of illegal aliens in this country.
Giving everyone of them due process that a US citizen gets gives you endless court hearings, time for appeals, then appeals to extreme hardship, appeals to improper detainment, appeals to refugee status, appeals to improper application of US laws, appeals to the UN basic human rights codes, appeals upon appeals upon appeals. It would be an anvil on the neck of the judiciary and every lawfirms wet dream. Big money. Thousands of new courts and thousands of lawyers would be needed. Due process is for those who come into this country spending time and effort the right way. Those who establish refugee status. Due process is for American citizens. The rest should be afforded just a little less. If some think that cold so be it.

---

if you dont like it then amend the constitution. But just understand that you're saying currently youre okay disregarding the constitution.