As a matter of law, the presumption of innocence (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt) does not usually extend to civil cases. The standard in civil cases is a preponderance of the evidence.
There is a notable exception when initiating a civil case for redress of an overturned conviction (Nelson v Colorado, 2017). It doesn’t make sense to overturn a conviction on the presumption of innocence then require the same person to prove their innocence to be reimbursed.
No, but that’s not ICE’s fault. Congress has set the boundaries for their operations, and the Supreme Court has granted broad latitude to Congress to deal with foreign affairs (including immigration matters).
ICE agents are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution above any loyalty to the President or statutory law. Should they seek an injunction from performing their duties until such time as the immigration courts can provide due process within forty-eight hours?
And ideally, shouldn’t the President be on their side?
Slowing down apprehensions looks bad for the President’s base, so he isn’t on your side. ICE administrators depend on their jobs to support their families. If they go against the administration (publicly or privately), they lose their jobs. There are plenty of people out there waiting to take their place. Less-qualified, less compassionate people who might even be racist or xenophobic. What did Sally Yates accomplish?
Huh? ICE agents don’t have any constitutional duties. The Constitution doesn’t mention immigration enforcement, and ICE officers’ duties are wholly specified by statute and regulation.
Unless you are on the banks of the Rio Grande or otherwise in the immediate vicinity of the border, I don’t believe ICE can detain you on sight based on your presence alone. And skin color cannot be used as a factor either; if it is, I am very much against that.
It is my understanding that ICE goes through the trouble of looking for “illegal immigrants” in their computer system - people born outside of the US without a record of citizenship or lawful resident/visa status, then goes out in search of them.
If they are actually heading out to random parking lots and public spaces in search of Mexican-looking people, then look them up in the system (or not), a la plain racial profiling, that’s horrible.
All members of the executive branch are sworn to uphold the constitution. 5 U.S. Code § 3331
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
The Fifth Amendment reads in part:
“No person… shall… be deprived of… liberty… without due process of law.”
Holding a person in custody for over forty-eight hours without seeing a judge constitutes a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Cites available on request.
My concern would be that if I were detained by ICE, how could I get the proof that I’m a citizen. I’m basically held incommunicado so I can’t have an attorney that would get my records. I can’t call home and have someone grab my birth certificate or passport. Can I count on ICE recognizing the gold star on my driver’s license and realize that since I’m in a REAL ID state that it is implied (in my state) I’m here legally? I wouldn’t count on it.
Sure, I’d love to see a cite. My suspicion is that you’re referring to criminal law. Due process for immigration matters is different so hopefully your cite is with respect to the applicable standards.
I’m pretty sure that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” applies outside of criminal law, and even applies to people who aren’t citizens, and even applies to people who came here illegally.
Or really, is the expectation that a person accused of mass murder has more legal rights regarding life, liberty and property than a person accused of being here with an expired Visa?
And even if Congress sets the bounds for how ICE operates, the point about ICE being a bunch of thugs who have nobody overseeing them is correctly directed to Congress and the President, who are every bit as much responsible for ICE’s abuses as ICE itself.
The claim is that being held for greater than 48 hours without a form of arraignment is a violation of the 5th amendment prohibition against deprivation of liberty without due process.
Of course due process applies to anyone in the country, regardless of their immigration staus. What constitutes due process is in question, not whether due process applies.
If you view arrest as a form of imprisonment, then I think any attempt to match your dictionary with mine would take several days/pages and hijack this thread.
So, you said “If arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally, the burden is on the person being arrested to demonstrate they are here legally.” and “Now, if a person is actually a citizen, they would be in the first category, however unless they can demonstrate they are in the first category, I would think they fall into the second.”
And you don’t see anything wrong with either of those statements when it is pointed out that a detained person does not have *any[/] burden of proof unless and until the government meets its burden of proving that the person is a non-lawful permanent resident?
No, but I could be missing something. The government doesn’t need to prove a person is a non-LPR, at least by my understanding. They need to establish it, but the standard for establishing that is not a high bar. Glad to be corrected.
ICE: Your honor, the defendant has no paperwork showing they are a citizen.
D: If you let me contact someone I can have the paperwork.
ICE: See, he even admits he doesn’t have his paperwork on him.
Judge: Back to the hole. No contact with anyone.
Maybe we should always carry our passports with us at all times.