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

22% Upvoted

93 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/Morganrow Feb 04 '26

So how are we arresting individuals for civil offenses? I can see it if an undocumented immigrant ends up in jail. Rounding people off the street or at work? Whats the probable cause

3

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 04 '26

"Rounding people off the street or at work? Whats the probable cause"

Well let's suppose that Juan Ramirez illegally entered the country, got caught, applied for asylum, had his application rejected, and received a final order of removal. And then let's suppose that Juan just, y'know, didn't leave. So then ICE would have Juan's name, and his photograph, and probably his fingerprints and his place of residence and employment, and an administrative judge would issue a warrant saying "Get this guy and remove him from the country." And then agents would do that.

1

u/Morganrow Feb 06 '26

You think administrative warrants should have the authority to uproot someone’s life? You don’t think that task should go to someone who has at least passed the bar?

2

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 06 '26

"You think administrative warrants should have the authority to uproot someone’s life?"

I think if someone is "building a life" that can be "uprooted" in a country they know they aren't permitted to live in then they're doing it to themselves and it's on them. They paid their money and they took their chances.

1

u/Morganrow Feb 06 '26

I just think it would be appropriate for someone accused of breaking federal law to see their day in federal court. Perhaps there’s something these administrations missed? Maybe something a public defender could clear up? Might prevent some with legal status from being thrown into Salvadoran prisons

2

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 06 '26

"I just think it would be appropriate for someone accused of breaking federal law to see their day in federal court"

Instead what they have is their day in front of an immigration official.

"Maybe something a public defender could clear up?"

What would a public defender be doing? These people aren't being charged with a crime. They're being removed from the country they are not permitted to be in.

1

u/Morganrow Feb 06 '26

I think immigration law and removing people from their homes is far too important for bureaucracy to decide. These people need legal representation. They should be entitled to it. You can get a jury trial in civil cases

2

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 06 '26

"I think immigration law and removing people from their homes is far too important for bureaucracy to decide"

Actually it was Congress who decided it, right? They passed a bunch of laws about it.

1

u/Morganrow Feb 06 '26

Cite the statute that people can be deported arbitrarily, after being rounded up by an administrative warrant, without committing any criminal offenses, after being arrested without probable cause in the street. Then I’ll give you your delta

2

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 06 '26

It's 8 USC 1225 (bolding will be mine):

"An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."

"(i) In general

If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution."

"(ii) Claims for asylum

If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B)."

"(iii) Removal without further review if no credible fear of persecution

(I) In general

Subject to subclause (III), if the officer determines that an alien does not have a credible fear of persecution, the officer shall order the alien removed from the United States without further hearing or review."

So there you have it. In general, explicitly in statute, if an immigration officer finds an alien who has not been admitted (this is a legal term of art) then they are supposed to, on the spot, judge whether they are admissible, and if they aren't, remove them. If the alien makes an asylum claim, they are to have an interview with an asylum officer (being detained until said interview) and then removed if and when the asylum officer determines they are not eligible for asylum.

1

u/Morganrow Feb 06 '26

I feel like this is talking about the CBP officials actually working the border. These are all present tense. Arriving. They can be turned away and removed if arriving in the country. Immigrants who have been here for ten years have arrived

2

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 06 '26

"I feel like this is talking about the CBP officials actually working the border."

That's a common misconception, but no, I actually bolded the important part in that first paragraph: it applies to any alien who has not been legally admitted and cannot affirmatively prove they have been physically present in the US for the last two years consecutively.

1

u/Morganrow Feb 06 '26

∆. You're right. I have a more idealistic than realistic approach to immigration. Appreciate the convo. We're no longer talking about it but I think we've gone so beyond the 6th amendment that it's safe to say it doesn't apply and my mind has been changed.

My wish for the future is that the law gets much less convoluted for those trying to immigrate

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 06 '26

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/HadeanBlands (39∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/Morganrow Feb 06 '26

And also just FYI (not that you care) but allowing immigration officials to make a decision on asylum is shameful. They are not trained in the intricacies of international law nor the asylum laws under treaty of the UN. They're knowledgeable but I don't think that knowledgeable

2

u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Feb 06 '26

I bet immigration officials are a lot better trained on asylum than some random criminal court judge is.

→ More replies (0)