If there is an invasion of millions of people, are you suggesting the federal government would have to merely say that you are one of them in order to pack you and your family into an airplane to a foreign slave camp for the rest of their lives, without even giving you an opportunity to argue that you're not one of those "invaders"?
I trust the government to reasonably determine whether someone is an illegal immigrant. The courts can determine if that process is reasonable. I don't think illegal immigrant "invaders" are entitled to due process (especially when they are gang members).
If we didn't have that then we'd have a gaping hole for foreign adversaries to exploit. Send their people to do harm, bog down our courts, and our government has no recourse.
Does every enemy combatant get "due process" when they are engaged by US military personnel? No.
Are police officers required to provide "due process" when using their firearm on a dangerous perp? No.
We entrust them with the agency to act accordingly and there are systems for review.
It was a yes or no question, but hey I guess a comment literally 100% full of incorrect information works too.
> I trust the government to reasonably determine whether someone is an illegal immigrant.
Your trust is demonstrably misplaced. We already know with 100% certainty that American citizens have been detained beyond the permissible 24hr window without charges. We already know with 100% certainty that completely legal immigrants were deported.
> The courts can determine if that process is reasonable
They have. 9 to 0, SCOTUS said the process is not reasonable.
> I don't think illegal immigrant "invaders" are entitled to due process (especially when they are gang members).
Can you show me this carveout in the 14th or 5th Amendments? (You can't)
> Does every enemy combatant get "due process" when they are engaged by US military personnel? No.
Are US military personnel regularly engaging enemy combatants within US jurisdiction under which the 14th and 5th Amendments apply?
And in any case, even abroad: yes there is a process for legally authorizing specific military engagements.
> Are police officers required to provide "due process" when using their firearm on a dangerous perp? No.
Using your firearm on a dangerous perp is only legal in an immediate defense context, it is not a legal punishment for breaking the law.
If you want to use your firearm on a dangerous perp as legal punishment, then yes, they will get due process first. It's called being "sentenced to death," and is pretty much the most elaborate form of due process we have.
> We entrust them with the agency to act accordingly and there are systems for review.
Funny you say that, because the current administration's argument is quite literally the opposite. Their specific legal argument is that courts do not have any right of judicial review over their deportations.
