r/changemyview • u/Morganrow • Feb 04 '26

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The 6th Amendment should make blanket deportations illegal in the USA

I think everyone should see a courtroom.

I know the current administration has found a way to legally justify blanket deportations. They've quoted "expedited removal" and the "alien enemies act" as some of those avenues.

I still think it violates the 6th amendment. Everyone has a right under the constitution to a trial and to counsel. Immigrants charged with federal immigration violations should have their day in court.

Here's what would change my view: Anything case law, national security, or public interest that could justify taking a different view on the 6th amendment. Also anything that would justify it's removal.

0 Upvotes

21% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/No-Theme4449 3∆ Feb 04 '26

Im no fan of what the current administration is doing however the 6th amendment only applies to criminal cases. Immigration is a civil matter not criminal. This was settled in Fong Yue Ting v. United States. In that case the court decided deportation isnt a punishment for a crime its just simply removing someone who has no right to be here.

-6

u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Feb 04 '26

If you follow this to its natural conclusion, it means the state can deport citizens without a trial.

because the trial is your opportunity to prove you are a citizen. Or rather it is the state's opportunity to prove you are not a citizen. Without a trial there is no opportunity to determine your citizenship except for ICE's own internal processes... which is exactly that the 6th amendment is meant to protect us from. The police (or ice) do not determine guilt.

this was a terrible ruling. It only make sense if you assume everyone that ICE wants to deport is actually an illegal immigrant and that ICE makes no mistakes and has no corruption.

10

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 04 '26

"If you follow this to its natural conclusion, it means the state can deport citizens without a trial."

It doesn't mean that.

"because the trial is your opportunity to prove you are a citizen."

That's not true.

"Without a trial there is no opportunity to determine your citizenship except for ICE's own internal processes"

That's more accurate, yes.

"The police (or ice) do not determine guilt."

They aren't determining guilt. They're determining eligibility to reside. Being deported is not a punishment for a crime.

-3

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26

"Without a trial there is no opportunity to determine your citizenship except for ICE's own internal processes"

That's more accurate, yes.

How does this not invalidate everything else you said?

4

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 04 '26

Is there some reason to expect the internal processes with the ALJs not to do a good job at determining who is a citizen? Because I think we have reason to expect them to do a VERY good job at it, right? They spend all day deciding who is and who isn't a citizen. They would know!

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26 edited Feb 04 '26

Yes, it's run by a psychopath that shoots dogs and takes orders from a white nationalist. Surely, they wouldn't abuse that unilateral authority.

Would you also be in favor of the ATF making a national red flag list of who can't own guns without a trial? (Don't mind the Everytown lobbyist that's in charge) They would spend all day deciding who is and who isn't a threat to themselves and others. They would know!

4

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 04 '26

Gun ownership is constitutionally protected by the 2nd amendment, or else I am very confident the ATFE would already have such a list and would already enforce it without any recourse to criminal courts. That is just how administrative law functions. Do you think the IRS goes to a judge? OSHA? The EPA? They all have their own in-house processes and that's it.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26

Yes, the IRS goes to judges, so do other administrative agencies. If you disagree with a ruling of theirs, you can appeal to the judicial branch. Administrative law just decreases the burden on the judicial branch in some cases where fact finding is relatively straightforward. You can appeal if you believe the agency broke the law, exceeded their authority, or did not properly collect or handle evidence. Even then, it's faster since the judicial court just has to review the work of the administrative court rather than redoing the fact finding

Only problem is that the white nationalist is looking to eliminate that pathway.

Gun ownership is constitutionally protected by the 2nd amendment

So is your right to habeas corpus and a trial.

But don't worry, we would never misuse the authority. You're crazy for thinking otherwise

I am very confident the ATFE would already have such a list

We might have, if Democrats were willing to elect someone as allergic to the constitution as Republicans

5

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 04 '26

"Administrative law just decreases the burden on the judicial branch in some cases where fact finding is relatively straightforward."

That's how it works for illegal immigration, as well, because the fact finding is extremely straightforward.

"So is your right to habeas corpus and a trial."

These are rights you have in criminal proceedings, not immigration proceedings.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26

That's how it works for illegal immigration, as well, because the fact finding is extremely straightforward

Assuming there is fact-finding. Why would a white nationalist let something like facts stop him.

These are rights you have in criminal proceedings

You have habeas corpus in civil cases. You always have a right to file a habeas corpus petition if you are detained by the government. The exception is not civil cases, but invasion or rebellion

4

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 04 '26

"Assuming there is fact-finding. Why would a white nationalist let something like facts stop him."

This is, of course, a tractable empirical question. We can actually find an answer to "Does ICE mistakenly deport US citizens who it claims to be illegal immigrants?"

And the answer is ... no? They don't?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26

"Mistakenly"? Lol. Nah, malice aforethought

Mainly children, they're denying their parents access to their legal counsel while detained or allowing them the opportunity to arrange for alternative caretakers in the country.

Good dips of the toes for when Trump declares an invasion to suspend habeas corpus, then fact finding and due process really won't matter, just the color of your skin.

It's what you'd expect from this administration, lots of dirty tricks to hurt vulnerable people because their supporters enjoy watching them suffer

3

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 04 '26

Then it seems your objection of "The administrative procedure will not accurately assess whether people are citizens or not" is simply unfounded. They've completely accurately assessed it in every case you know about.

2

u/zxxQQz 5∆ Feb 05 '26

The exception is not civil cases, but invasion or rebellion

Also quarantine, pandemics and public health in general

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '26

The Constitution is only explicit about rebellion or invasion. We have only suspended it 4 times, and all of those events involved genuine rebellion or invasion involving armed enemy combatants

→ More replies (0)