You should believe me because I’m right. 
Here’s a cite
Sorry, dude, no dice: the only relevant item in the above cite is written in the future tense, i.e. no such decision has been made yet, to my knowledge.
The only item above that even refers to detention says non-citizens may NOT be arbitrarily detained, and there is no mention whatsovever of non-citizens having differential right to counsel.
Something more on point, please?
Wrong yet again, december. Slavery is ancient history in the United States. Now, if you can show that the United States government is involved in preserving the practice of Slavery in the Sudan, then by all means do so.
Just wanted to note that sailor’s statement is, with only minor exceptions not applicable to the situations discussed in this thread, an accurate description of constitutional law.
Well, that’s good. I didn’t know that, and as a foreign national residing in the US on an F1 student visa, i feel better now.
You can now feel free to ignore my earlier rant about inconsistency. Unless you are one of those on this thread who seem to believe that due process is a privilege to which only Americans are entitled.
december, you are doing a good job of sidetracking this thread but you are gtting yourself into deeper waters.
Obviously non-citizens do not enjoy the right of abode, the right to vote, serve on juries, serve in the military forces (although they are permitted to do so) and other rights tightly related to citizenship but otherwise they enjoy all the civil and constitutional rights and the full protection of the laws. There might be very exceptional exceptions like the infamous executive order establishing military tribunals only for aliens, and even that one has not been tested as for constitutionality.
The constitution talks about due process for everybody, not just for citizens. The idea that a US cop can just shoot an illegal immigrant dead because he has no rights is (1) wrong and (2) so repugnant that I can’t see how you would think it is even acceptable.
But, since you believe aliens do not, in fact, and should not, enjoy the right to the full protection of the law let me ask you this: Why the fuck do you open a thread complaining that an alien is not getting treated well by the US government?
I know you have already told me that consistency is for small minds and not for you but sheesh, enough already!
mhendo, the idea that the rights spelled in the constitution apply only to Americans is a misconception which is very widespread and comes up every so often in this board just like the one about the president having to be born on US soil which you can find in GQ right now.
Not only in the USA but in pretty much any country in the world the protection of the laws apply to everybody under the jurisdiction of that law and the only exceptions are those rights which are closely related to citizenship like voting, the right of abode, serve in juries, official positions etc. But as far as being protected in your civil rights and the right to due process etc, you can be very sure that you are protected in any country you go to. Any country which did not do this would be an isolated exception. There is just too much ignorance going around.
** december, ** how long are you going to procrastinate in providing a cite which shows that aliens present within U.S. jurisdiction have been shown in a court of law, preferably the U.S. Supreme Court, not to have the same right to freedom from arbitrary detention and the same right to counsel as U.S. citizens?
This stuff about union organizing, voting, jury service, etc. is a ridiculous bunch of red herrings.
I, and at least several others, are waiting…
Eva, you give him way too much credit.
“Heightened deference” is one thing. “Total abdication” is another. The U.S. government is arguing that the executive can “legally” detain people it declares to be “illegal combatants” and that the Courts have no power whatsoever to intervene. In other words, the executive branch claims the right to imprison people, even U.S. citizens, and determine by decree that those people have no constitutional rights at all.
Think about what that means. Lock 'em up without access to the Courts? Well, that’s OK. Torture them? Well, it wouldn’t be nice but these people are beyond the reach of the judiciary so they can’t really complain about it. Anyway, they might have important information! Oops! Our “interrogation” got a little too rambunctious! Oh well, no right to liberty, no right to life either, I guess. If the Courts have no power to look at a violation of one, they’ve got no power to look at a violation of the other! Hey, you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right?
Even if the Supreme Court should agree with such a proposition ala Korematsu, would that make it right? The U.S. Constitution is a powerful shield against oppression, but only if people are willing to stand up for it. “They also serve who stand and bitch.”
And, December, that admission you were wrong about what the executive branch is doing to innocent legal residents? We’re still waiting.
This is just comical. december believes it is ok for the US governement to imprison a non citizen without charges but it is not ok to make him wait in Canada. I guess we can infer december believes Canada is a much worse place to be than a US prison.
Eva, I now understand that we have had a misunderstanding. All I said (or all I meant to say) was that aliens in the US do not have the same Constitutional rights as citizens, which my cite verified. I did not mean to address the specific legal quesiton about the right to legal representation.
December, what language do you speak at home?
Your dodging and weaving would be a lot more effective if your multiple contradictory statements didn’t all appear on the same page.
So tell me, what part of,
**
wasn’t clear to you?
And we’re still waiting. . .
Uh, Truth Seeker, if you want to demonstrate my “dodging and weaving,” you need to find some posts of mine that included contradictory statements. The exact point of my prior post is that Eva Luna’s post which you quoted was based on a misunderstanding. What part of my prior post wasn’t clear to you? :wally
december go back and read:
To which your response was:
Misunderstanding , my foot. It is very clear you were just plain wrong.
And I insist: if you do not believe aliens are entitled to the same rights as citizens why would you start a thread complaining about a bureaucratic delay of a matter of a non-citizen? Especially since you do not even know if he is entitled to anything at all and may have even broken the law? And especially since in the past you have justified worse hardship just by saying it was legal. This delay is also legal.
And why do you consider living in Canada worse than living in a US prison incommunicado?
Furthermore, in her next post Eva Luna said:
And your immediate response was
Misunderstanding, my other foot! You were plain wrong and the worst part is that you are right: it has been discussed several times in this board and you haven’t learnt anything because you cannot get over your own prejudice.
Since you insist. First of all, you can delete the word “if”. I do believe that aliens are not entitled to the same rights as citizens, and I supplied a cite proving it. You may not like that, but it’s what the Constitution means, according to the courts.
Second, there are many things to complain about that are not civil liberties violations. Bureaucratic incompetence of the INS is a valid complaint. In fact, I have a vague memory of complaining about it in some past thread.
That’s just stupid and insulting. You have no evidence at all that my new cousin has broken the law.
I don’t believe that. I probably have argued that certain government actions were legal (and I was probably right), but I never justified them just because they were legal.
I will resist this straight line, in deference to my Canadian friends here on the board. But, please don’t tempt me like this again. 
December, let me post it in extra large type for you, side by side.
**
Now, given that Eva mentioned only the right to counsel and freedom from arbitrary detention – and given that is all anybody had discussed for the last dozen or so posts, there are only two plausible explanations, either 1) you are intentionally trying to “edit” your posts now that your ridiculous position is completely unsupportable even to you or 2) you need to see a neurologist immediately.
I’d even be willing to let your “misunderstanding” schtick pass if 1) you hadn’t already made a regular habit of this sort thing and 2) you hadn’t already done exactly the same thing in this very same thread – indeed, on this very same page.
**
This is really your trademark isn’t it? You are to facts what Justhink was to arguments.
>> You have no evidence at all that my new cousin has broken the law
I had a very good reason for saying that. In a past thread when some of us were complaining about the rounding up and arrests of people without any kind of judicial guarantees one of your arguments was that they “may have broken the law”. Well, the same can be said about anyone, including your cousin. Especially since you say he needs to get a visa. Well, if he did not have a visa he was most definitely breaking the law.
I believe my earlier posts about your lack of consistency are quite obvious and the readers can judge for themselves. OTOH, I guess the upside of having absolutely no credibility is that you don’t have to worry about losing it.
In re: breaking the law and visa eligibility: one of the major purposes of having visas adjudicated in the first place, particularly green card applications and anything that depends on them (such as interim work authorization and advance parole) is to weed out those with criminal backgrounds and other issues in their pasts which might make them ineligible for the benefits they have applied for. You’d be amazed at how many normal-seeming professionals with a wife, 2.3 kids, a dog, and a house with a white picket fence have convictions for drug dealing, or assault, or a zillion other things. I’ve seen it numerous times; sometimes, the convictions were for youthful indiscretions that even their spouses didn’t know about, and sometimes they weren’t.
Again, I emphasize that I am in no way suggesting that this is necessarily the case with december’s cousin. However, conversely he doesn’t get to skip the adjudications process just because december thinks he’s a nice guy. The rules are there for a reason. Believe me, fewer people are sorrier than I am that it takes INS so damn long to do anything about their adjudicaitons backlog, but if you have an application pending, you need to pay attention to the rules that apply to you during its pendency.
As for the civil liberties issues and the clarity of my previous posts: thanks, sailor and Truth Seeker, for defending my honor so I could take the evening off and spend it chatting with a very charming Chinese-Canadian guy. And ** december, ** until you can come up with a single cite that indicates that non-citizens under U.S. jurisdictions do not, by law, enjoy the same freedom from arbitrary detention and access to legal counsel, I see no reason why I should pay any attention to any legal argument you make. (I probably will, though, because I’m a sucker for an immigraiton debate.)
If you think aliens shouldn’t have the same standing as citizens in these areas, well, that’s your opinion, but AFAIK it currently has no basis in law or in fact. And God help us all if that ever changes.