Due process is the process through which determinations about legality of actions are determined correct?
In the case of immigrants, production of proof of citizenship should assuage the crime of illegal entry. The act of producing or failing to prduce proof is the due process, right? Am I just unaware of cases where people are not identified and then deported based on no other facts?
"Due process" could also be with regards to immigration status. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was in the country legally when he was scooped up and deported to the CECOT gulag. The administration admitted an "administrative error" in this case.
I will never advocate for the government. I just want to understand what is being perceived to have happened. If the rule is "if you walk into the club house without a way to prove you are a member, you get kicked out" Then I don't understand the issue. If people are not given a chance to prove they're a member that is a different issue.
"If people are not given a chance to prove they're a member that is a different issue."
Given the context of your metaphor this is clearly the case with Garcia.
Agreed. But I would wager that's the exception not the rule correct? The government has killed innocent people as well, I would not debate that. The point is, is that the case for a majority of immigrants?
No I suppose it's not happening to the "majority" of immigrants, but it signals a pretty clear policy change, with new "boundary pushing" things happening every day. If I were an immigrant in the US, I would reasonably be scared as to whether I'm next.... Not wait until we start filling up trains with people.
Do you mean immigrant as in in the US illegally or just someone who immigrated? Because I am fairly certain current visas and green cards are still valid. But hey, I wouldn't put anything past the state. I guess it's sort of a question with what kind of state power you are more comfortable with:
Forced association- massive illegal immigration
Or
Forced Disassociation- massive illegal immigrant deportation
"Do you mean immigrant as in in the US illegally or just someone who immigrated?" We're going around in circles here. The context is specifically Abrego Garcia who is here *legally*, according to the Trump administration in legal filings.
"Forced association- massive illegal immigration" --- Nothing about this is "forced association." Private property allows one to exclude whomever one wants from property. Public property is another issue, and while there can be a "tragedy of the commons" effect I think the problem with home-grown homelessness and mental health issues is far greater than anything created by illegal immigration.
"Forced Disassociation" -- Yes, this one is the problem. If I choose to employ or associate with someone who happens to be on the other side of an arbitrary line, and some Band of Thugs kidnaps that person, then the Thugs are the aggressors and in the wrong.
Lol, the comment about majority precludes mention about the exception case you cited. So, yeah, I get that that 1 guy is an exception.
Secondly, it is absolutely forced association strictly BECAUSE of the forced sharing of public property. That's kinda my whole point. I don't believe in public property but because it is forced upon me I have to care about my associations due to it.
It's easy to see the forced disassociation but not the forced association to you? Read my bio, I am an anarchist not some statist but I can also recognize inconsistencies in morals.
OK sure, but the problem is more the existence of public property producing the "tragedy of the commons" issue.... Everyone's experience with this is different, but from my point of view living in a major US urban area, the problems of homelessness are much more pronounced than that of immigration....
And I think there is data to bear out the conclusion that homeless people are far greater consumers of public services and "disrupters" of public life (in whatever context you're referring to be "forced association") than immigrants.
That's not my argument. I'm not a utilitarian. Both things are bad. I agree that public property is a problem. The point I am making is one of force. If I am to be forced to either interact or not interact with anyone by a government. I would rather not interact because I can live my life free of interlopers.
OK sure, but in the context of immigration, are you really saying that the existence of public commons constitutes being "forced" to interact with other people? Because I think that's quite a stretch...
You could in principle live in a tower with a helipad, or Iive your existence on a private luxury yacht, never having to step foot on public property or be within 100 m of anyone outside of a carefully cultivated bubble.... it's super expensive of course, but it's possible.
And then the other problem is, from a fundamental moral perspective, if you are being "forced" to interact with people in public, then by reciprocity, they are being "forced" to interact with you. Who gets to have the moral claim of grievance here?
Yes, by definition. I did not invite them nor did anyone else. Therefore they impose themseves upon all of us. Unless the property is private it is impossible to know who is invited and who isn't.
The people native to the place having others imposed upon them have the grievance. That thought experiment logic you wrote is akin to If you don't want a burglar in your house and he does want you to attack him who is at fault? Nonsense.
Illegal immigrants are at the very least uninvited by the warlords who impose their will upon the people.
As long as there are public borders the anarchist argument is kind of moot though.
Courts don't matter much anymore. The Supreme Court can't even uphold the TikTok ban. They can't stop the Gulags either.
What would stop government agents from deporting me or you to an El Salvador prison? Are you ready to prove your citizenship at a moment's notice? Should we be required to carry our papers around at all times?
When the very question is whether someone has committed a crime, there has to be someone other than a government agent accusing you before the government can do something against you. Even if you believed that witches or terrorists or illegal aliens were subhuman and had no rights while non-witches or non-terrorists or non-aliens had rights there still must be a bootstrapping process (due process) to establish whether someone is in fact a witch or terrorist or illegal alien to avoid violating the rights of the non-witches or non-terrorists or non-aliens.
The only real rights are human rights: natural and negative rights. They do not apply to different classes of people. No one, not even citizens, have a "right" to health care, for example, they only have rights to not be prevented from voluntarily exchanging for health care, especially by a government.
So whatever that due process is, if the government has done it for that individual, they should deport. If they have not, they should not.
Dude, the law is a joke. The thing that stops them is probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Either way it's up to the warlords in control that do whatever they want.
Why won't they do that to me? Because I will shoot anyone who would try to kidnap me.
