Arrest my ass. If they don’t mirandize, give you a phone call and immediate and consistent access to a lawyer, then it’s abduction.

Neither of these claims are true. Miranda rights apply to criminal arrests but immigration arrests are typically civil.

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a lawyer during critical stages such as interrogation and court proceedings only, e.g. in California the window in which arraignment is guaranteed is 48 hours (this is where the court will offer defendants the opportunity for a court-appointed lawyer).

> Miranda rights apply to criminal arrests but immigration arrests are typically civil.

> The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a lawyer

I think people arrested by ICE are not guaranteed a lawyer, because, as you say, it's a civil matter. This means if you find yourself sleeping on a cot behind a chain link fence in Alligator Alcatraz, and you want to speak to a lawyer, you'll have to pay for it yourself, because it's all a civil matter.

Are we great again?

>you'll have to pay for it yourself, because it's all a civil matter.

The past few years of screaming "being undocumented is a civil infraction, not a crime" turned out to be a self-own.

Maybe, but I think they meant "treat it like a civil matter while giving civil-matter protections". Be consistent. The current criminal treatment with civil protections is inconsistent. Pick a lane.

It's also just not true that they're giving the much-lower civil protections either. Garcia didn't get a jury despite the Seventh Amendment guaranteeing one in common law (for cases exceeding a challenge of $20, which we've been purposively interpreting for decades)

Garcia doesn't get the protections afforded by the Seventh Amendment:

Deportation is a civil treatment. It's one of the actions the government can use when you violate civil immigration laws:

  The Court added that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments [therefore] have no application. That is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government-appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings.

https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/due-process-...

>"Deportation is a civil treatment. It's one of the actions the government can use when you violate civil immigration laws"

This is true, good catch.

However, one of the issues with this - without guaranteeing proper due process in a civil immigration matter - is that the lack of right to due process or deliberation can make it harder for citizens (or otherwise lawfully-present individuals) to present documentation proving their lawfulness, in the event that they are accused of a civil immigration law. We've already seen folks held for extended periods of time - with intent to hold indefinitely - that were ready and able to prove identification, immigration, and even citizenship. It's a big problem that relies on believing in good-faith for the government ("Why would I be held for an immigration law? I can show my passport with just a car ride home and the passcode to my safe!"), when the government is already acting in bad faith - and not offering strict standards or guarantees (due process, deliberation) for you to prove your lawfulness - before their detention, even if unfounded, starts negatively impacting your life.

And on the note of the case law reinforcing these actions, there's case law for many other actions that we've been compelled to disagree with over the history of this nation. If anything, ongoing case law just means Congress routed a life-altering decision into a DOJ tribunal where hearsay flies, evidence can be withheld as “law-enforcement-sensitive,” with no lawyers provided, and people can sit in detention that I described in my above paragraph for months. My point remains that we often start (and finish) the process to boot someone from the country with less process than you get over a $20* debt. THIS IS BAD PROCEDURE

Deportation is a civil treatment. It's one of the actions the government can use when you violate civil immigration laws:

  The Court added that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments [therefore] have no application. That is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government-appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings.

https://www.heritage.org/border-security/report/due-process-...

Something being into law doesn't change reality. It is abduction even if the Pope and the Queen sign on it, period. Remember not everyone in the planet is American, this is like quoting North Korean law to justify some random atrocity.

It is Hacker News so of course someone is gonna rationalize fucking abducting people.

Countdown until we hit the "Abduction is a feature not a bug" stage of the discussion.

What type of "immigration arrests" are valid against citizens?

Arrests are based on suspicion. As long as there is reasonable suspicion at the time of the arrest then it’s valid.

What qualifies as "reasonable suspicion" of a citizen committing an immigration crime? Aren't you just advocating for the ability of ICE to arrest anyone who has the wrong color skin or speaks the wrong language?

isn't that the point?

Probable cause or a warrant. I am not sure what PC for being an illegal immigrant looks like, maybe seeing someone climbing the border wall?

Obviously it's being brown or speaking Spanish...

Reasonable suspicion is not a high enough bar to jail somebody.

If the end result is that people are forcibly abducted, extradited, and thrown into an El Salvadoran prison without due process, I really don't give a shit what the law says. It can't be described as "civil."

Due process is ultimately what keeps this from happening to YOU.

You can’t argue for both due process and say you don’t give a shit about the law. This is just a word salad to claim that you’re above the law or that the law is somehow whatever you want it to be.

Being deported without due process is a huge problem! But the place to address that is the courts. Indeed, progress is being made on that front.

I don't know the law, and didn't say I did. I know the difference between right and wrong, though. I was responding to the GP comment where you basically argued that, "Well, actshually, nothing Trump's doing is illegal."

I also know that the courts are turning into wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Trump Organization. Not all of them, of course. But as for the rest, if there is no way for them to enforce their rulings -- and it seems there is not -- then they have no more power than random commenters on Hacker News, and deserve no more consideration.

Of course they can! They just did right there. You don't have to accept their argument. You can be a heartless sycophant and reject it out-of-hand because their argument doesn't follow the rules of the very framework they are arguing against. That's your choice.

Progress is being made in both directions on this front. If you truly believe in the law, then argue for it. Considering the fact that the current POTUS is a convicted felon, and the supreme court has practically eliminated all checks on his power, I'll be taking arguments for lawlessness seriously.