In the world we could assess this completely and with perfect accuracy, you're spot on that that'd be all that we need!
In the current world, though, due process exists because there are sometimes messy and fuzzy details that need evaluation. For instance, the date of an immigration court hearing might be delayed, or an applicant may be granted an extension. An immigrant may have received incorrect information and missed the proper steps through no fault of their own. If immigration enforcement skips due process but is working on even slightly outdated information, we're trashing the rights of people who may be following the process properly.
In the cases where an immigrant is clearly here illegally and there are no extenuating circumstances, deportation is already the thing that the current due-process does.
> Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case?
Criminal court is only one type of use-case for the legal system, there are loads of other ones. The phrase "Civil court" refers to scenarios where no one has committed a crime and no one is accused of a crime, and these represent the majority of court cases.
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.
>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.
>It seems like at your school they didn't mention habeas corpus
Habeas doesn't apply... no one's trying to prosecute them for a crime. The juvenile confusion you're experiencing, where you believe deportation to be some sort of punishment for a crime, rather than merely the immediate remedy for someone who doesn't belong where they are, well it's bizarre.
If someone breaks into your home tonight, do you think the police can't remove them from the house until after the trial?
The writ of habeas corpus applies to detention, not prosecution. In fact this is why it exists. If it only applied after a crime was alleged, the government could hold people in extrajudicial detention forever so long as it never leveled criminal charges. The Bush administration did exactly that in Guantanamo and was slapped down by the Supreme Court.
>The writ of habeas corpus applies to detention, not prosecution.
It doesn't. If a cop stops you on the sidewalk for 10 minutes, that's being "detained", but they don't need to meet the burden of first going to a judge and presenting the evidence required in habeas. Which is all of the detention that occurs in these cases, after that it becomes deportation.
But, should habeas be required of deportation, then only proof required for that is "here is the documentation showing lack of citizenship".
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.
>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.
> Why would someone who has not committed a crime and is not accused of a crime need a court case?
So if the executive decides they suspect you are an illegal alien, detains you, claims to have checked you are an illegal alien, and then expels you to some foreign country you have no right to challenge this at any point in the process?
Because if that’s what you think “due process” means, than the government never has any need for criminal process at all, it just needs to decide it suspects people of being illegal aliens instead of criminals, then it can imprison them indefinitely while it “checks” and expel them whenever it decides it tires or imprisoning them (perhaps to someplace it knows they will be killed or deprived of then nevessities of life), all without ever defending any of those acts as justified in court.
While you are correct in stating that an article III court generally is not required, the due process for immigrants, even those not present legally, is more complicated than just "check paperwork for legal status, act immediately". While in some cases expedited removal bypass the normal process, if a deportation is contested, due process still generally entails access to a hearing before an immigration judge (article II judge).
What do you think the process to check whether someone is an illegal immigrant is? It needs to leave a paper trail, and provide someone the opportunity to prove that they're a citizen or here legally.
>It needs to leave a paper trail, and provide someone the opportunity to prove that they're a citizen or here legally.
If you would read the articles where people are griping about this case or that case, none of these immigrants have contested it with a "but I'm a citizen". I suspect this is because they know that won't fly. For the amazingly few cases where a citizen is temporarily detained, many of those cases are leftists trying to jam ICE up by not making the claim and hoping they overstep.
None of those that have made the news are cases where it goes to court because the detainee claims citizenship and ICE denies it.
That doesn't work in all cases. ESTA visa for example you give up the rights to due process if you overstay on that visa as part of the agreement to the visa.
Doesn't justify anything that ICE are currently doing though.
And what if someone claims you overstayed the visa, but you didn't? You still need a legal process to defend yourself from arbitrary accusations. Not having a process is not just morally wrong, it is also simply non-functional.
This is risible. "Sending them home" requires arrest and detention. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution grants people the right to contest their detention in court. So far, the administration hasn't formally suspended habeas corpus, despite what Stephen Miller may assert on TV.
