The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

[FlashDangerpants]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

No it doesn't. Not in the USA, not in Canada and not here either.

Here's the relevant text:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Immanuel Can]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

No it doesn't. Not in the USA, not in Canada and not here either.

Here's the relevant text:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The government of America has no "jurisdiction" over non-citizens. They're interlopers and violators, and are not subject to the rule of American law, nor responsible to its citizens. If the Americans give them any "process" at all, it's a freebie. They don't have to.

[FlashDangerpants]

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

No it doesn't. Not in the USA, not in Canada and not here either.

Here's the relevant text:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The government of America has no "jurisdiction" over non-citizens. They're interlopers and violators, and are not subject to the rule of American law, nor responsible to its citizens. If the Americans give them any "process" at all, it's a freebie. They don't have to.

That's just stupid. Of course they have jurisdiction in the territory where they have the courts and enforce the laws. Don't make such a fool of yourself man.

[Immanuel Can]

No it doesn't. Not in the USA, not in Canada and not here either.

Here's the relevant text:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The government of America has no "jurisdiction" over non-citizens. They're interlopers and violators, and are not subject to the rule of American law, nor responsible to its citizens. If the Americans give them any "process" at all, it's a freebie. They don't have to.

That's just stupid. Of course they have jurisdiction in the territory where they have the courts and enforce the laws. Don't make such a fool of yourself man.

"Jurisdiction" means "legal authority," not "piece of territory." Look it up.

[FlashDangerpants]

The government of America has no "jurisdiction" over non-citizens. They're interlopers and violators, and are not subject to the rule of American law, nor responsible to its citizens. If the Americans give them any "process" at all, it's a freebie. They don't have to.

That's just stupid. Of course they have jurisdiction in the territory where they have the courts and enforce the laws. Don't make such a fool of yourself man.

"Jurisdiction" means "legal authority," not "piece of territory." Look it up.

Sometimes I feel second-hand embarrasment on your behalf...

Here's a link to a legal dictionary, although it is absurd that you need it.
https://www.clio.com/resources/legal-di ... isdiction/

Territorial jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases within a specific geographic area. It establishes the boundaries within which a court can exercise its power and enforce its judgments.

Types of Jurisdiction:

Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
This determines which court can hear a particular type of case. For example, a federal court might have jurisdiction over cases involving federal laws, while a state court might have jurisdiction over cases involving state laws.

Territorial Jurisdiction:
This determines the geographic area where a court has authority. For example, a state court generally has jurisdiction over cases occurring within that state's borders.

Personal Jurisdiction:
This determines whether a court has the authority to bring a particular person or entity before it. This often depends on factors like residency, business activities, or minimum contacts with the state.

Concurrent Jurisdiction:
Sometimes, both state and federal courts can have jurisdiction over the same type of case. This is known as concurrent jurisdiction.



US law applies territorially within its borders, and in some cases (particulalrly in anti-corruption law) the US maintains the right (against common law tradition of other nations) to extend its laws extra-territorially.

When you are in the USA, you are within the jurisdiction of one state and one federal state at all times, which is why you are subject to their law and the means by which they apply the law under due process.

Within the jurisdiction (all types) of the United States, the US govt is just as much as any citizen, visitor or tourist, beholden to the laws of the USA. That's the whole point of the constitution. It's why very special people are granted diplomatic immunity.

[Immanuel Can]

When you are in the USA, you are within the jurisdiction of one state and one federal state at all times, which is why you are subject to their law and the means by which they apply the law under due process.

No, that's the territory under their jurisdiction (i.e. the piece of land over which the US has authority). It doesn't mean that everybody who's standing on that territory is a citizen, or that that person gets the rights of a citizen. You can't become a citizen by getting lost and wandering onto a piece of land.

[FlashDangerpants]

When you are in the USA, you are within the jurisdiction of one state and one federal state at all times, which is why you are subject to their law and the means by which they apply the law under due process.

No, that's the territory under their jurisdiction (i.e. the piece of land over which the US has authority). It doesn't mean that everybody who's standing on that territory is a citizen, or that that person gets the rights of a citizen. You can't become a citizen by getting lost and wandering onto a piece of land.

So... within their jurisdiction then.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC wrote: The government of America has no "jurisdiction" over non-citizens. They're interlopers and violators, and are not subject to the rule of American law, nor responsible to its citizens. If the Americans give them any "process" at all, it's a freebie. They don't have to.

An interesting perspective or interpretation. Would you take this to mean — could it be taken to mean — that someone who entered the US illegally has no legal recourse? That they can simply be deported?

If it could wash it would make deportation of illegal entrants far less complex and problematic.

What have the precedents determined? Do you know?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The man was denied due process and illegally sent abroad without ever getting an opportunity to face his accusers in court. This must be remedied by returning him and handling the matter according to the law. You pay for the guy to be in that El Salvadorian death camp, so you must have a contract that allows you to reclaim any sent in error.

You are a collaborator in the collapse of America's rule of law and the erosion of its right to consider itself a civilised nation. Later on you will want to say that nobody could see it coming and none of it was your fault. But it was clearly visible, and you joined in quite willingly.

If I am not mistaken the supposed violation (by the administration) was only that the man had been given by a court a sort of reprieve (to deportation). That ruling has “stepped over” (to put it politely) and the man deported to El Salvador. But they could not have deported him to prison there, only El Salvador could place him in prison.

Had there been no previous court reprieve, there is no legal reason why they could not simply have deported him.

The administration certainly knew that he and numerous Venezuelans would end up in that prison, so there is some cynicism and complicity there. But not necessarily illegality (except in defying that previous court order).

[Immanuel Can]

When you are in the USA, you are within the jurisdiction of one state and one federal state at all times, which is why you are subject to their law and the means by which they apply the law under due process.

No, that's the territory under their jurisdiction (i.e. the piece of land over which the US has authority). It doesn't mean that everybody who's standing on that territory is a citizen, or that that person gets the rights of a citizen. You can't become a citizen by getting lost and wandering onto a piece of land.

So... within their jurisdiction then.

As invaders and criminals, which they became when they crossed the border without going through legal process, what "process" do you allege to be their "due" that they are being "deprived" of?

[FlashDangerpants]

The man was denied due process and illegally sent abroad without ever getting an opportunity to face his accusers in court. This must be remedied by returning him and handling the matter according to the law. You pay for the guy to be in that El Salvadorian death camp, so you must have a contract that allows you to reclaim any sent in error.

You are a collaborator in the collapse of America's rule of law and the erosion of its right to consider itself a civilised nation. Later on you will want to say that nobody could see it coming and none of it was your fault. But it was clearly visible, and you joined in quite willingly.

If I am not mistaken the supposed violation (by the administration) was only that the man had been given by a court a sort of reprieve (to deportation). That ruling has “stepped over” (to put it politely) and the man deported to El Salvador. But they could not have deported him to prison there, only El Salvador could place him in prison.

This whole fiasco has a wikipedia page. The Trump admin paid for him to be put into a prison, if you want to try and pull of some semantics bullshit to say they aren't at fault for him being in a foreign prison that cannot go well. What next? Are you going to tell me checked into it thinking it was a hotel?

Had there been no previous court reprieve, there is no legal reason why they could not simply have deported him.

The fifth and fourteenth amendments covering due process do apply, they had no court order authorising deportation, so no, they couldn't simply deport him, not legally.

And anyway, he had legal status, here from the above wiki...
In 2019, an immigration judge granted him "withholding of removal" status—a rare alternative to asylum—due to the danger he faced from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. This status allowed him to live and work legally in the United States.

But furthermore, from the same source... On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously[c] ruled that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal

So yeah, the Trump admin is just thumbing its nose at the concept of constitutional rule of law. Idiots like IC and Walker aren't really capable of comprehending that this sort of thing comes at a huge cost. They don't realise how important it is that the state can fight a legal case before its own courts, and in the event that it loses, be bound by that judgment just as any person in front of the law would be. That principle is incredibly important, and only dictatorships and failed states do away with it.

The administration certainly knew that he and numerous Venezuelans would end up in that prison, so there is some cynicism and complicity there. But not necessarily illegality (except in defying that previous court order).

It's the coverup that gets you in the end. Telling the judge that it was all an "administrative error" while a senior White House adviser is going on TV to say it isn't. There's sworn depositions going into all this and pissed off judges who want to know which officers of the court have failed their duty of candour.

And this is all just one explosion of shit for an administration that causes new shit explosions every day. We're almost at the 90 days that Trump gave Hegseth and Noem to make their recommendations about invoking the Insurrection Act to declare martial law. Suspending habeas corpus and using the military to police the streets is some proper 3rd world bullshit.

[FlashDangerpants]

No, that's the territory under their jurisdiction (i.e. the piece of land over which the US has authority). It doesn't mean that everybody who's standing on that territory is a citizen, or that that person gets the rights of a citizen. You can't become a citizen by getting lost and wandering onto a piece of land.

So... within their jurisdiction then.

As invaders and criminals, which they became when they crossed the border without going through legal process, what "process" do you allege to be their "due" that they are being "deprived" of?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Immanuel Can]

So... within their jurisdiction then.

As invaders and criminals, which they became when they crossed the border without going through legal process, what "process" do you allege to be their "due" that they are being "deprived" of?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They aren't being "deprived" of any of those. They have their "life," they aren't owed "liberty" of the US, and no "property" is involved. They're definitely criminals in the US, and their home, along with any property that's legitimately theirs, is in El Salvador, or Colombia, not in the US. They're getting a free flight back to their homeland. That's all.

[FlashDangerpants]

As invaders and criminals, which they became when they crossed the border without going through legal process, what "process" do you allege to be their "due" that they are being "deprived" of?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They aren't being "deprived" of any of those. They have their "life," they aren't owed "liberty" of the US, and no "property" is involved. They're definitely criminals in the US, and their home, along with any property that's legitimately theirs, is in El Salvador, or Colombia, not in the US. They're getting a free flight back to their homeland. That's all.

On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously[c] ruled that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal The US Supreme Court says you are wrong Mannie, why are you doing this to yourself? You always look completely stupid when you do this shit.

Equal protection of the laws means - among many other things - that if you are accused, you have the same protection against false accusation as anybody else - the right to your day in court to be heard and to face your accuser. This right is not reserved for citizens, that just a lie you are telling because you don't like losing face.