Philosophy Now Forum

After investigation I think it clear that illegal immigrants have quite a few legal rights.

See here.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:55 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:50 pm

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,

I don't know the case, so I can't say what was involved. You don't give any information about it. But what the Court does not say is that removing invading non-citizens is illegal. That, the Federal Government has jurisdiction to do. And that's why they're doing it, despite whatever this case was actually about.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:34 pm After investigation I think it clear that illegal immigrants have quite a few legal rights.

See here.

And is it evident that any of these "legal rights" are being violated?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:55 pm They're definitely criminals in the US

No one is a criminal until convicted by due process in a court.

Everyone knows that. Manny is pretending he’s forgotten. Manny is right wing, and deeply dishonest. It is possible to be right wing without being dishonest, but Manny can’t manage it.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:30 pm 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.

Not quite “the same” as a citizen or a legal non-citizen (from what I read just now) but certainly a group of Constitutional rights. Deportation proceedings against do not require the same evidentiary proofs and hearsay and government testimony is taken as factual (unchallengeable I take it). So the proceedings move rather quickly (which is not unfair).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:30 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:55 pm
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,

I don't know the case, so I can't say what was involved. You don't give any information about it. But what the Court does not say is that removing invading non-citizens is illegal. That, the Federal Government has jurisdiction to do. And that's why they're doing it, despite whatever this case was actually about.

This is a pretty big news story around the world, if you haven't been in the loop then you can just sit this one out.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:43 pm No one is a criminal until convicted by due process in a court.

What I just read about the question is a bit different. An illegal immigrant, said to be involved in illegal activities through hearsay or simply by government testimony, can be classified as deportable simply on that low level of proof. I.e. seen as likely to be criminal.

That is not a conviction per say. Strong suspicion though.

(If I read correctly. I scanned quite a few pages rather fast).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:43 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:30 pm 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.

Not quite “the same” as a citizen or a legal non-citizen (from what I read just now) but certainly a group of Constitutional rights. Deportation proceedings against do not require the same evidentiary proofs and hearsay and government testimony is taken as factual (unchallengeable I take it). So the proceedings move rather quickly (which is not unfair).

The evidentiary rules for specialist courts may well be specialised for the sort of cases tried therein. But the accused always has right to challenge evidence that is untrue or that is improperly collected. If you don't have that much right at least, then the equal protection clause has been breached.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:43 pm No one is a criminal until convicted by due process in a court.

One is criminal when he's invaded a country for which he has no citizenship. That's a criminal act already.

But I repeat my question: what's the evidence that somebody's rights are being violated?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:37 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:34 pm After investigation I think it clear that illegal immigrants have quite a few legal rights.

See here.

And is it evident that any of these "legal rights" are being violated?

I don’t have much sympathy for those associated with criminal gangs who are also illegals, but the case of this one man seems to be that he should have completed the hearing process before they did put him on the plane.

He did go through a series of procedures and he had “status” not to be deported (work permit) and he should not have been deported.

I am uncertain about the Venezuelans. (They’re screwed though. It is unlikely they will ever get out of that prison…)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:55 pm He did go through a series of procedures and he had “status” not to be deported (work permit) and he should not have been deported.

So he wasn't an illegal alien.

Not a relevant case, then. That's why Flash didn't want to give any details.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:55 pm They're definitely criminals in the US

No one is a criminal until convicted by due process in a court.

Everyone knows that. Manny is pretending he’s forgotten. Manny is right wing, and deeply dishonest. It is possible to be right wing without being dishonest, but Manny can’t manage it.

Well technically, Trump wasn't officially a convicted criminal until he was sentenced. If he had managed to get the sentencing delated in the 34 felonies case, he would have been able for some reason to deny that he was convicted. That rule I know very little about - I have exhausted my info in a couple of sentences.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:53 pm
The evidentiary rules for specialist courts may well be specialised for the sort of cases tried therein. But the accused always has right to challenge evidence that is untrue or that is improperly collected. If you don't have that much right at least, then the equal protection clause has been breached.

What I read though is that in some of those hearings the level of evidence is much lower. Hearsay is admitted (report of a third party) and simple government testimony is taken as factual.

The accused (or the rounded up) have rights but they are limited.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:57 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:55 pm He did go through a series of procedures and he had “status” not to be deported (work permit) and he should not have been deported.

So he wasn't an illegal alien.

Not a relevant case, then. That's why Flash didn't want to give any details.

This is the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. It is entirely relevant. He is illegally detained in El Salvador after being illegally deported. He is the one that Walker wants left to die in a cage without ever giving him due process.

You are a crazy bullshit artist. Here is the wikipedia page for this debacle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportati ... ego_Garcia

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:57 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 10:55 pm He did go through a series of procedures and he had “status” not to be deported (work permit) and he should not have been deported.

So he wasn't an illegal alien.

Not a relevant case, then. That's why Flash didn't want to give any details.

He entered as an illegal alíen. Hecwas detained. He had various hearings that he lost. But the last one granted him a special, limited legal status. To reside and to work. He could later have lost that status and been legally deported.

I put the likelihood that he had been involved with gangs at say 65% likely. By association. (This is speculation).

(I do not imagine he deserves life in prison though.)