[rpearl]

When someone is allegedly an il_legal_ immigrant, they are present but allegedly violating immigration _laws_.

That is to say, such a person has been accused of a crime.

Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court against such accusations.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>When someone is allegedly an il_legal_ immigrant, t

When someone is allegedly a murderer, or a thief, or a vandal, or whatever... a trial is needed to determine guilt or innocence.

But when they arrest someone for those things, the preliminary process allows police to determine someone's identity. Their address, things of that nature. Their basic information. Basic information is all that is needed to determine whether or not someone is a citizen. There is no trial needed to determine citizenship.

>Due process in the constitution guarantees that individuals (including non-citizens facing deportation) have the opportunity to defend themselves in court

No, you attended public school and someone had you memorize "due process" in 3rd grade and you never were taught what it meant. It does not guarantee "a defense in court", because in this case there is no crime to defend against. No one's wanting to send them to prison. In the simplest terms, due process is the idea that the government must have a process for a particular legal proceeding, and that if someone must undergo that proceeding they get the same process everyone else does. If rich people were getting to skip out of the proceeding, or get a shortened one, but you had to go through the entire thing... it'd be a due process violation. Or alternatively if you wanted that proceeding and they were getting to skip it (say you had a full 30 day period to file, but they canceled your filing that same day) you'd have a due process violation.

[projectazorian]

> No, you attended public school and someone had you memorize "due process" in 3rd grade and you never were taught what it meant.

It seems like at your school they didn't mention habeas corpus or Magna Carta? Maybe it sounded too scary and foreign?

[Light_Hope]

While the importance of due process cannot be overstated, immigration violations are not generally crimes outside of a few specific areas. Removal proceedings are frequently not tied to any particularly crime, but merely unlawful presence, which is not a crime in its own right.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>When someone is allegedly an il_legal_ immigrant, they are present but allegedly violating immigration _laws_.

That's ok. They can be pardoned for that crime, I do not with to see them prosecuted or incarcerated. Sending them home is enough.

>That is to say, such a person has been accused of a crime.

Nope. Just accused of being a non-citizen, which if it turns out to be true, is de facto proof that they do not have the right to reside within the United States. Citizenship = right to live here. Not all rights are fundamental, voting and residence belong only to citizens.