> The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration’s ban on birthright citizenship

See also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...

> Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?

> weird legal technicality

Indeed, if your ancestors didn't cross the Bering Land Bridge at least 10K years ago then you're clearly not a native, and should be deported back to your continent of origin ASAP. And if you don't like it then I hope your lawyer can catch up to the trucks hauling you to a distant, deportation-happy district where you'll be processed!

People like you are so fucking retarded you are personally an example of why democracy doesn't work.

Could you find me the one that lets the president's office strip citizenship from people?

Those of us with white skin and no accent may find that a silly prospect. Citizens who are different are already facing this risk.

Constitution does not provide for identical due process between illegal aliens and citizens.

Since expedited removal is authorized under 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(1), Courts have held up limited due process for those that not fully admitted or who can’t prove longstanding presence.

Then, you have entry fiction doctrine where those at the border are treated as if they have not entered the US under the law.

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) held that an immigrant stopped at the border had limited due process rights.

Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have broad authority over who may enter and remain in the US

You do realize that the underlying case which SCOTUS limited the scope of preliminary injunctions relates to an Executive Order which directly contravenes the 14th Amendment:

   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
   the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 

I get it. You want to throw lots of folks out. If that's what you want, then that's what you want. But if they can strip one natural born citizen of their citizenship without any due process, they can do that to any citizen -- including you and me. No thanks.

No executive order can override the Constitution.

My point was narrower: when people bring up “due process” it’s important to recognize that not all persons receive the same level of due process in every context. Courts have long held that undocumented individuals and particularly those subject to expedited removal or caught at the border have limited procedural protections compared to citizens

All I am advocating for is better safeguards that Congress must pass not throwaway the entire structure by allowing local injunctions.

Understandably people are upset but point the anger at the right branch. Executive is operating within its legal parameters and the legislative branch needs to operate within theirs. Congress needs to provide better safeguards

Huh? Since when is issuing executive orders that attempt to contravene the plain language of the US Constitution, something that's clearly illegal, "operating within [the executive branch's] legal parameters"?

Whether Congress is doing its job or not (I'd argue they're not representing their constituents in any meaningful way -- hell, I wanted to vote against my congressman since I was moved into his district in the last two elections, but he ran unopposed) is irrelevant to a blatantly illegal assault on US citizens by executive order.

There are plenty of things to take Congress to task for, but executive orders (you know, from the executive branch) aren't one of them.

The remedy should come through the right constitutional channels: lawsuits, appeals, congressional action. The concern I raised is about courts going beyond their own limits to impose broad fixes when the real solution lies with Congress or SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS ruling is about Preliminary Injunctions[0], which aren't remedies and they aren't permanent.

They serve to prevent harm while litigation progresses. This isn't something new, nor (until very recently) has it been very controversial.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...

Preliminary injunctions have long been part of the legal system and their role in preventing harm during litigation is well recognized. The recent ruling does not eliminate preliminary injunctions

The case at hand addresses their scope and the authority of district courts to extend them beyond the parties involved in a specific case

The only thing I have consistently raised is maintaining that structure so courts operate within defined authority

It’s about time that SCOTUS reigned things in

If every single case must be prosecuted individually, those who have been illegally robbed of due process will already be stuck in El Salvadorean (or South Sudanese, etc.) prisons and unable to challenge it in US courts.

In other words, ICE effectively gets carte blanche to continue violating constitutional due process under the ruling. The "judicial overreach" complaint is a distraction - injunctions can always be appealed at a higher level in the court system (excepting when the SC does it themselves), so there was already a mechanism to handle problematic injunctions.

The implications for the unconstitutional executive order regarding birthright citizenship is just as gross, as an individual whose citizenship gets restored via court challenge will almost certainly face repeated citizenship challenges by other red states for the rest of their lives, any of which may require additional time in court to address.

Someone might be deported, incarcerated, or otherwise harmed before the courts even rule on whether their rights were violated.

US legal system highly values procedural fairness and due process.

This is by design, not accident

Meaning the executive can just keep deporting without due process or honoring birthrights, so long as they back down for anyone with the means to challenge it. (And their lawyer is fast enough, and knows which district they were spirited off to in the middle of the night.)

Illegal aliens have less due process by law.

reversing that case law would be a bit much even for Alito, I think.

Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence.

Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not the same ceiling as citizens or green card holders

The distinction I was trying to make isn’t that undocumented people have no rights and it’s just that the process they’re entitled to is different in scope

There are safeguards that could be added such as access to interpreters, better identity verification, etc

But the answer can’t be local injunctions which is what this entire SCOTUS decision was about

Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch.

The executive swears to uphold the constitution. Not write EOs that clearly violate it, then strategically drop appeals when they lose, so as to undermine the constitution for everyone without the means to dispute their case.

If the executive is dropping appeals to avoid nationwide precedent, that’s a serious problem, but the long-term fix isn’t local injunctions

See my point?

Fortunately a thousand years of common law have figured out how to deal with this sort of thing, while those challenges are ongoing. It's called an injunction. It's issued when there's a strong case for an EO violating it, and is done when the violation, if allowed unabated, will cause irreparable harm to the the victims.

The legal process hinges on preventing irreparable harm while a case is being litigated. If it didn't, absolutely horrific things could be done to you under the color of law, and the people doing them would be incentivized to drag the cases out for as long as possible.

This is textbook, black-on-white, criminality from the executive.

Relief is still available through injunctive orders, class actions, appellate review, and coordinated litigation. These are all recognized parts of the legal system and remain available to address serious concerns

Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.

Because what could go wrong with not determining if someone is a citizen or not before deporting them?

Let's just turn to our national ID system...oh wait...

> But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them.

Are you suggesting the only two options are extraordinary rendition to concentration camps in El Salvador with no recourse or instant squatters rights for all foreigners?

> You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.

Let me offer an existence proof: gestures all around to where we're currently standing

We do have birth certificates and in most states it is actually very hard to get state ID without at least residency so yes asking for ID is usually enough.

why not just shoot them? seems less cruel than deporting them to an active war zone in Libya or South Sudan, or incarcerating them for life in CECOT where they'll be raped and tortured before being murdered.