[flagged]
Where’s the exaggeration?
Also, the quotes you’ve excerpted do not mention due process even once, but do in fact mention that those people may perhaps be sent to El Salvador.
So your own quote only contains evidence for people being sent to El Salvador, and contains no evidence for them being provided due process, not even a “perhaps” they may be provided due process.
The amount of indoctrination and brain twisting it takes to take a quote that does not mention due process, but does mention the possibility of people being sent to El Salvador, and use that as evidence that there will be due process but people will not be sent to El Salvador absolutely astonishes me.
However, it is still important for these folks to go in front of a judge because the government has a responsibility to show evidence that the people they plan to deport are who they say they are, that this collection of atoms is the person named X. If Person X says they should not be deported because they are a citizen, a court is the proper place to adjudicate that. Let Person X bring purported proof of citizenship, let the court assess the validity of such proof. ICE and other law enforcement agents are not equipped to do any of this in a neutral fashion.
A key objection right now is that we are skipping this long-established legal process because it is too slow to serve political ends. (It is slow in part because we don't care enough to spend more money to make it faster.)
Without bringing folks before a judge, all of this gets short-circuited. The inevitable result of skipping judicial adjudication at scale will be that US citizens will end up in foreign prisons with their only recourse being lucky enough to have people in the US going to extreme lengths to locate them and find a sympathetic court. This is quite literally the entire point of habeas corpus, the reason why it has been part of English legal tradition for nearly 1000 years (US inherited this via English Common Law).
It's not going to end well that an allegation can have someone rapidly deported, without that person having the chance to e.g. show their proof of citizenship.
Edit: Most people do not carry proof of citizenship on their person. Most US driver's licenses, even REAL IDs, do not display citizenship status. For example, Georgia does not accept REAL IDs issued by Georgia as proof of citizenship. Further, a person walking on the street (or in their home) may not even be carrying their ID. We have judicial processes because courtrooms are neater than the messy processes that occur in the field.
Most of the Venezuelans have been deported under the Alien Enemies Act, under an extremely tenuous reading of what an “invasion” is, by claiming they are members of a gang which is “invading” the country. If they can read the law this way then it’s not clear we have rule of law anymore. Anyway, the only court case testing this law didn’t turn on determining whether the members were factually members of the class. In this case there are serious questions about whether the people deported were actually members of the gang. Even in WWII relevant nationality individuals went before a civilian board to determine if they were of the nationality to deport.
The people being disappeared from colleges are being held and deported under the theory that they “pose a threat” to the United States, based on the Secretary of State making that determination, which again, not really due process. They are also being whisked to a more favorable circuit for their habeus petitions, which is pretty suspect.
Arguably maybe citizens will be afforded an actual appearance before a judge, but remember that they can just claim you’re a member of a Venezuelan gang and whisk you away. And once you’re gone how do you prove otherwise?
As far as being within US borders, that’s a strange argument given that no statute requires imprisonment within the US borders… I guess it’s legally untested but it seems insane to me that detention could be allowed to be under non-US custody. Among other things, that would move those detained literally outside of US jurisdiction. I don’t think it’s been done outside of espionage situations of dubious legality with people not resident in the US. Even the Guantanamo bay prisoners were under US jurisdiction.
Just because a judge has a different opinion doesn’t mean they are right. Just like the government’s interpretation might be wrong.
The government is testing boundaries here…soon laws will be clarified and those boundaries will be determined. In the interim the theater aspect of all of this has an effect to discourage illegal immigration and encourage self deportation.
> In the interim the theater aspect of all of this has an effect to discourage illegal immigration and encourage self deportation.
Also legal immigration as they've revoked green cards from people who emigrated legally and some of those people have apparently been "disappeared." It's not about "illegals" and it's dangerous at this point to continue spreading this misinformation.
Judge being involved…yet. There is a lot of flexibility within the INA and its subsequent legal modifications to detain a noncitizen while their case is being heard. My guess is the weakest argument for the government in all of this is that they were actually physically removed from the US prior to their hearing being completed. Their detention is lawful. Where they are detained might have to be remedied by SCOTUS.