Laws like human rights, right of due process, right to not be attacked by unidentified masked thugs, right to not be attacked with unjustified force …. It’s clear who is committing the more serious crimes here: the end does not justify the means
The due process is for them to leave the country after their visa has ended. The due process is for them to be deported if they don’t. The aren’t owed a trial, their right to be in the country has legally and factually ended.
Due process means following the legal procedure. Due process means proving it. Due process means giving the accused a chance to object. This is what prevents mistakes, prevents abuse of authority, prevents it from degenerating into racism, prevents terrorizing innocents. Due process is what keeps us from being the criminal.
And what do you think happens after they’ve been taken into custody for overstaying their visa?
Remember - it’s not “alleged” that they’ve overstayed their visa. It’s fact. It’s like if you get caught driving without a license. You get arrested. That’s the process.
You can’t “object” to your visa being expired., just like you can’t “object” to not having a drivers license. These are things that are registered with the government and they can easily check the status of.
If you are caught driving without a license, the police officer takes down the evidence, maybe they arrest you, you are brought before a magistrate to see if evidence looks solid and you can decide whether to accept whatever the charge is or dispute it. If you dispute you are probably allowed free on bail or your own recognizance until you are called in to court. There the state describes the charge and produces their evidence and you have an opportunity to argue it.
There is all sorts of due process, checks and balances against abuse of authority, and the state has to have a preponderance of evidence showing you were guilty.
And of course the analogy falls over when you realize that overstaying your visa is a civil offense, not a crime.
The analogy doesn’t change. You get taken into custody for overstaying your visa. That’s the first step of the due process.
I don’t know where you live, but where I line driving without a license is a straight up arrest and fine. You don’t get brought before a magistrate where they present evidence, because the fact you don’t have a license is not up for dispute. There’s no evidence that can change that.
All of this is almost irrelevant though, because the very first step is being detained. That’s the start of the due process.
This isn’t due process. You’re just making up your own definitions in order to support your ridiculous argument.
I’m not surprised that a criminal like /u/GoatSynagogue, someone who is in the country illegally, would be advocating for such lawlessness by government officials. He needs to be captured and deported back to Antarctica immediately.
Laws like human rights, right of due process, right to not be attacked by unidentified masked thugs, right to not be attacked with unjustified force …. It’s clear who is committing the more serious crimes here: the end does not justify the means
The due process is for them to leave the country after their visa has ended. The due process is for them to be deported if they don’t. The aren’t owed a trial, their right to be in the country has legally and factually ended.
Due process means following the legal procedure. Due process means proving it. Due process means giving the accused a chance to object. This is what prevents mistakes, prevents abuse of authority, prevents it from degenerating into racism, prevents terrorizing innocents. Due process is what keeps us from being the criminal.
And what do you think happens after they’ve been taken into custody for overstaying their visa?
Remember - it’s not “alleged” that they’ve overstayed their visa. It’s fact. It’s like if you get caught driving without a license. You get arrested. That’s the process.
You can’t “object” to your visa being expired., just like you can’t “object” to not having a drivers license. These are things that are registered with the government and they can easily check the status of.
If you are caught driving without a license, the police officer takes down the evidence, maybe they arrest you, you are brought before a magistrate to see if evidence looks solid and you can decide whether to accept whatever the charge is or dispute it. If you dispute you are probably allowed free on bail or your own recognizance until you are called in to court. There the state describes the charge and produces their evidence and you have an opportunity to argue it.
There is all sorts of due process, checks and balances against abuse of authority, and the state has to have a preponderance of evidence showing you were guilty.
And of course the analogy falls over when you realize that overstaying your visa is a civil offense, not a crime.
The analogy doesn’t change. You get taken into custody for overstaying your visa. That’s the first step of the due process.
I don’t know where you live, but where I line driving without a license is a straight up arrest and fine. You don’t get brought before a magistrate where they present evidence, because the fact you don’t have a license is not up for dispute. There’s no evidence that can change that.
All of this is almost irrelevant though, because the very first step is being detained. That’s the start of the due process.
This isn’t due process. You’re just making up your own definitions in order to support your ridiculous argument.
I’m not surprised that a criminal like /u/GoatSynagogue, someone who is in the country illegally, would be advocating for such lawlessness by government officials. He needs to be captured and deported back to Antarctica immediately.
Well, I’d object, but you said he was a criminal so you’ve clearly given him his due process!
(/s if that’s needed)