Regardless of the circumstances, if you're not a US citizen I would encourage you to not travel to the US. Even if you _are_ a US citizen you may well be harassed and abused by ICE.
(1) "Judge" is not necessarily identical with "due process." (2) Congress can't override constitutional protections by passing new laws. That would require a constitutional amendment.
A law cannot overturn the Constitution, you need an Amendment for that. In principle, anyway. If you have a Supreme Court that abdicates its duties then you can do whatever you want, at the cost of legitimacy.
The nuances of criminal procedure may not apply, but the fundamental constitutional rights still do, as well as human rights. Indeterminate detention violates both.
A distinction without a difference, and it's questionable whether deportation is actually the goal here. If that were the case they could put him on plane today.
Basically, the guy admits that he overstayed the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, but is arguing that the fact INS started processing his adjustment of status application gives him the right to stay in the U.S. until it's resolved:
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
Remember that the whole point of the Visa Waiver Program is that you're conceding up front that you're just visiting and aren't making a claim for asylum or whatever. The idea is that the U.S. makes it easy for you to enter, in return for you agreeing that the U.S. can easily deport you if you overstay.
"The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.”
The statute is exceedingly clear. Subsection (a) first says: "An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
That applies to those who step across the border as part of a border crossing or rescue. The court decision applies it to all aliens, which is the never before applied part of GP.
The whole point of subsection (a)(1) is to treat all aliens similarly to those who cross the border for purposes of the chapter. Subsection (a)(1) is titled "Aliens treated as applicants for admission."
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
I think you misspoke. “Protects” is a statement of fact which does not resemble current facts. “is supposed to protect” would be more accurate.
The as built does not currently match the plan provided by the constitution and rule of law. Please see your nearest democratic representative to address the problem.
Increasingly this seems like a scam intended to re-route my tax dollars into the private prison corporations that donate to the Trump campaign. What purpose other purpose could this possibly serve?
It's also a small step to just detain and deport anyone remotely eligible who criticizes those in power, criticizes those who support those in power, is a family member of one of the prior mentioned parties, or is not in the preferred range of skin tones for those in power. They already deported a few citizens, oops, that's just going to happen when they have deportation quotas to meet, and let that be a warning to the rest of the uppity citizens with the gumption to protest against them.
Trump always brags about "Border Encounters" are 0 suspiciously quickly after he took office. I'm almost certain this is letting people in, while claiming it's secure. Win win.
Regardless of the circumstances, if you're not a US citizen I would encourage you to not travel to the US. Even if you _are_ a US citizen you may well be harassed and abused by ICE.
Due process under the US Constitution protects everyone in the US, not just US citizens.
Actually, thanks to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that's not exactly true anymore.
You can be detained and deported without first seeing a judge.
(1) "Judge" is not necessarily identical with "due process." (2) Congress can't override constitutional protections by passing new laws. That would require a constitutional amendment.
Also 'immigration judge' is not an Article III Judge for the purposes of Constitutional requirements.
A law cannot overturn the Constitution, you need an Amendment for that. In principle, anyway. If you have a Supreme Court that abdicates its duties then you can do whatever you want, at the cost of legitimacy.
According to Congress and blessed by Supreme Court, immigration law is civil, not criminal and therefore all criminal due process law does not apply.
It's been that way for over 40 years so yes, according to Congress/SCOTUS, this is legal.
The nuances of criminal procedure may not apply, but the fundamental constitutional rights still do, as well as human rights. Indeterminate detention violates both.
Indeterminate detention without end goal violates the law. However, my guess is process is moving along, just extremely slowly.
A distinction without a difference, and it's questionable whether deportation is actually the goal here. If that were the case they could put him on plane today.
They can't put him on a plane without his consent: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...
Basically, the guy admits that he overstayed the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, but is arguing that the fact INS started processing his adjustment of status application gives him the right to stay in the U.S. until it's resolved:
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
Remember that the whole point of the Visa Waiver Program is that you're conceding up front that you're just visiting and aren't making a claim for asylum or whatever. The idea is that the U.S. makes it easy for you to enter, in return for you agreeing that the U.S. can easily deport you if you overstay.
Law enforcement likes to say "You can beat the rap, but not the ride".
Due process protections also apply in civil law.
Not according to the 5th Circuit, sadly....
"The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-trump-a...
The statute is exceedingly clear. Subsection (a) first says: "An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
That applies to those who step across the border as part of a border crossing or rescue. The court decision applies it to all aliens, which is the never before applied part of GP.
The whole point of subsection (a)(1) is to treat all aliens similarly to those who cross the border for purposes of the chapter. Subsection (a)(1) is titled "Aliens treated as applicants for admission."
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
I think you misspoke. “Protects” is a statement of fact which does not resemble current facts. “is supposed to protect” would be more accurate.
The as built does not currently match the plan provided by the constitution and rule of law. Please see your nearest democratic representative to address the problem.
It really doesn't. It should of course.
But SV cheers it on
[edit- not accurate currently]
Looks like this actually got unflagged if it was flagged before. That's rare here.
Increasingly this seems like a scam intended to re-route my tax dollars into the private prison corporations that donate to the Trump campaign. What purpose other purpose could this possibly serve?
It's also a small step to just detain and deport anyone remotely eligible who criticizes those in power, criticizes those who support those in power, is a family member of one of the prior mentioned parties, or is not in the preferred range of skin tones for those in power. They already deported a few citizens, oops, that's just going to happen when they have deportation quotas to meet, and let that be a warning to the rest of the uppity citizens with the gumption to protest against them.
Getting Americans used to imprisoning every one they want.
An extremely charitable take. I commend you.
It’s absolutely a scam intended to route our tax dollars to private prisons. The rest is theater.
I bet the borders are still open to those who are motivated enough to cross.
Trump always brags about "Border Encounters" are 0 suspiciously quickly after he took office. I'm almost certain this is letting people in, while claiming it's secure. Win win.
> What purpose other purpose could this possibly serve?
It helps keep you safe. This man is a known IRA terroir and drug/arms trafficker.
Did I just pull that out of my ass? Yes! Doesn’t matter. To the right (and quite sizable) audience it is the truth.