I mean wouldn’t someone that’s here legally be able to prove it with a green card? Isn’t it like a physical thing like our American passport for example? That’s what I would think.
Shocking news: its possible to prove that you’re here legally or that you should be allowed to be here legally, its called going through the legal system and due process. If someone isnt here legally thats for the courts to decide
That’s not what I’m saying ? I’m asking, if You are a legal resident you would have a green card right? So wouldn’t they just be able to show that they have a green card to prove that they have legal residency? It’s a question. What I’m saying is by showing that you have a green card it proves that you are a legal resident. For example of someone tried to tell me that I wasn’t an American citizen I could just show them my passport and that ends that. And wouldn’t anyone that’s here legally have a green card? Or could they still be here legally before obtaining a green card?
The short answer is - yes, there are a bunch of ways to be legally in the United States without a green card. These tend to be temporary, or contingent on other things, so harder to track and produce immediate evidence of.
The longer answer is, it doesn’t matter. Deportation is a tool in the government’s tool kit for dealing with those who entered the country illegally - but Deportation is a process, with steps, due process and it requires the ability for the potential deportee to argue their case to an immigration judge. Being grabbed by masked thugs off the street, taking a brief layover in Louisiana while they fuel the plane and then being deported to a torture facility in El Salvador without so much as ever speaking to your lawyer is a contravention of your rights. Your human rights, your 5th Amendment rights, take your pick.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, for example, was never formally granted asylum. He missed the filing deadline of one year. However, in his original deportation trial he showed significant evidence and credible testimony that he had fled El Salvador to escape being forced to join the gang that was shaking down his family for protection money. The only reason he wasn’t deported after that original hearing was that a Judge granted him hold order - stating he specifically could not be deported to El Salvador because his life would be in danger. It’s unlikely he has any simple card or document that shows that order he could carry with him. In direct violation of that order, ICE sent him anyway. He’s almost certainly dead.
So you are walking down the street, being a super careful to always have your passport. Then a van pulls up and stuffs you in it. You declare you have a passport and are a citizen, but they don’t care. You didn’t get due process to show your documentation because they “mistakenly” put you down the “no due process” path.
It isn’t really possible to assure due process for only select people, either everyone must have it or else anyone could have due process denied under a claim that they belong to the “no due process” class.
Due process does not necessarily mean leniency, it just means a reasonable process and a chance to be heard and present your documentation and such. Without that guarantee, there’s no accountability of the enforcers and no guarantee you even can present your documentation.
Tell this to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was here legally, and was grabbed and sent to a prison in El Salvador. The government isn’t giving people any opportunity to prove their status. That’s what we mean when we say they’re not being given “due process.” There’s not a trial or anything. They’re just grabbed and hauled away.
The law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. (Yes, yes I know “for now” and the rule of law has ended you pedants let me have my modicum of hope.)
For decades people have been “convicting” others in the court of public opinion which has caused the general public to think they know better than a judge and jury while only having information from hearsay, rumors, and the news. That leads them to disregard court findings and believe people to be guilty who are not and people to be innocent who are not. So people who they don’t like are going to prison in El Salvador and people they do like are president.
It’s not an idea, that’s just how the word works. It can have different and more specific meanings in different context but generally a criminal is someone who has committed a crime.
Sort of, a criminal is someone who has been found guilty of committing a crime.
The way we prove that guilt, from the perspective of the US, is through the courts. Until the guilt is proven through the courts they are not a criminal but the accused of an alleged crime. Really seems like far to many people like to glaze over that part and just jump straight to an accused being guilty without due process.
It doesn’t say have been found guilty, it says is guilty. Someone who has committed a crime is guilty of it, whether or not it has been proven in court.
justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal principle. Like I tried to explain, there’s different context where in a court you could say that they can’t consider someone guilty (and a criminal for that particular thing) until proven so, but you can still be a criminal outside of specific legal language for being guilty, meaning having committed a crime.
Guilt also means different things, it can mean you have actually committed it (factual guilt seems to be the term for it) and legal guilt is the one proven and assigned in court.
How can they be criminals if they have no trial?
I mean wouldn’t someone that’s here legally be able to prove it with a green card? Isn’t it like a physical thing like our American passport for example? That’s what I would think.
ICE arrested a guy the other day, at his citizenship hearing. They don’t care.
Another one from the other day, ICE also arrested a guy for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, they were after someone specific, and just grabbed a guy because he was brown skinned.
Shocking news: its possible to prove that you’re here legally or that you should be allowed to be here legally, its called going through the legal system and due process. If someone isnt here legally thats for the courts to decide
If you aren’t allowed to even provide your documentation because there’s no due process, then that documentation does no good.
Failing to produce a green card automatically makes you an illegal resident?
That’s not what I’m saying ? I’m asking, if You are a legal resident you would have a green card right? So wouldn’t they just be able to show that they have a green card to prove that they have legal residency? It’s a question. What I’m saying is by showing that you have a green card it proves that you are a legal resident. For example of someone tried to tell me that I wasn’t an American citizen I could just show them my passport and that ends that. And wouldn’t anyone that’s here legally have a green card? Or could they still be here legally before obtaining a green card?
The short answer is - yes, there are a bunch of ways to be legally in the United States without a green card. These tend to be temporary, or contingent on other things, so harder to track and produce immediate evidence of.
The longer answer is, it doesn’t matter. Deportation is a tool in the government’s tool kit for dealing with those who entered the country illegally - but Deportation is a process, with steps, due process and it requires the ability for the potential deportee to argue their case to an immigration judge. Being grabbed by masked thugs off the street, taking a brief layover in Louisiana while they fuel the plane and then being deported to a torture facility in El Salvador without so much as ever speaking to your lawyer is a contravention of your rights. Your human rights, your 5th Amendment rights, take your pick.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, for example, was never formally granted asylum. He missed the filing deadline of one year. However, in his original deportation trial he showed significant evidence and credible testimony that he had fled El Salvador to escape being forced to join the gang that was shaking down his family for protection money. The only reason he wasn’t deported after that original hearing was that a Judge granted him hold order - stating he specifically could not be deported to El Salvador because his life would be in danger. It’s unlikely he has any simple card or document that shows that order he could carry with him. In direct violation of that order, ICE sent him anyway. He’s almost certainly dead.
So you are walking down the street, being a super careful to always have your passport. Then a van pulls up and stuffs you in it. You declare you have a passport and are a citizen, but they don’t care. You didn’t get due process to show your documentation because they “mistakenly” put you down the “no due process” path.
It isn’t really possible to assure due process for only select people, either everyone must have it or else anyone could have due process denied under a claim that they belong to the “no due process” class.
Due process does not necessarily mean leniency, it just means a reasonable process and a chance to be heard and present your documentation and such. Without that guarantee, there’s no accountability of the enforcers and no guarantee you even can present your documentation.
Tell this to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was here legally, and was grabbed and sent to a prison in El Salvador. The government isn’t giving people any opportunity to prove their status. That’s what we mean when we say they’re not being given “due process.” There’s not a trial or anything. They’re just grabbed and hauled away.
Because criminals don’t deserve due process! My government told me so! I am very smart! Checkmate, libs!
VERY big /s
Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
“If a cop says you’re guilty, you must be a criminal”
🤦♂️
Because some people think that the police using their power against you makes you automatically wrong and evil. We call those people bootlickers.
Because habeas corpus applies only to those with sufficient privilege.
I think “criminal” can just mean someone who has committed a crime while not having been in a trial convicted of it
Don’t spread that idea, that’s how we got here.
The law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. (Yes, yes I know “for now” and the rule of law has ended you pedants let me have my modicum of hope.)
For decades people have been “convicting” others in the court of public opinion which has caused the general public to think they know better than a judge and jury while only having information from hearsay, rumors, and the news. That leads them to disregard court findings and believe people to be guilty who are not and people to be innocent who are not. So people who they don’t like are going to prison in El Salvador and people they do like are president.
It’s not an idea, that’s just how the word works. It can have different and more specific meanings in different context but generally a criminal is someone who has committed a crime.
Sort of, a criminal is someone who has been found guilty of committing a crime.
The way we prove that guilt, from the perspective of the US, is through the courts. Until the guilt is proven through the courts they are not a criminal but the accused of an alleged crime. Really seems like far to many people like to glaze over that part and just jump straight to an accused being guilty without due process.
It doesn’t say have been found guilty, it says is guilty. Someone who has committed a crime is guilty of it, whether or not it has been proven in court.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilty
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal principle. Like I tried to explain, there’s different context where in a court you could say that they can’t consider someone guilty (and a criminal for that particular thing) until proven so, but you can still be a criminal outside of specific legal language for being guilty, meaning having committed a crime.
Guilt also means different things, it can mean you have actually committed it (factual guilt seems to be the term for it) and legal guilt is the one proven and assigned in court.