Many of the people currently being stripped of their rights and deported are documented, legal visa and green card holders or documented and legal asylum seekers.

Even illegal immigrants need to be deported through due process. That’s the entire part where the government is supposed to demonstrate that they are here illegally. We are currently skipping that part and essentially granting the executive branch unilateral authority to deport anyone to foreign labor camps as long as the press secretary says the words “illegal immigrant” or “MS-13”.

To make things even worse, these deportations are being overtly politically targeted. If you’re here on a legal visa and speak against this administration, they are making it clear that they will strip you of your visa and disappear you without a second thought and without an opportunity to defend yourself.

You are correct that the law is dead. You are embarrassingly mistaken about who killed it.

The problem isn't deporting illegal immigrants.

The problem(s) are... - lack of due process (Constitution doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal residents) - leading to deportation of legal residents (Garcia case from MD) - sending illegal immigrants to a jail that's hosted abroad is NOT deportation in the normal sense of the word - it closer to our holding of detainees at Gitmo post-9/11.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I am for reducing illegal immigration, but I am firmly against how ICE/this admin is doing it and I feel that the states should be pushing back against the attacks on due process.

Nothing wrong with deporting illegal immigrants through legal channels that allow for due process and follow the rulings of immigration courts.

Something very wrong with sending deportation notices or trying to sic immigration enforcement on American citizens.

This is a perfectly reasonable response during normal presidential administrations. However, this administration is credibly[1] accused of avoiding due process via the current deportation process.

I'll include a quote from the (9-0!) April 10th Supreme Court ruling[1] concerning the removal of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador.

> The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.

Without a chance to demonstrate that someone is in the US legally (i.e., Due Process), the defense of this action can be that it's necessary to prevent the rendition of US citizens to El Salvador or elsewhere. That might sound crazy, but we already have an example of a US citizen being held in custody per an ICE request, despite having proof of being born in the US[2]. If both practices continue, we'll ultimately see the intersection at some point.

--- [1] -- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

[2] -- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-u-s-citizen-was-held...

1. It is being done without due process. 2. One high-profile mistake has already been made; and a man is now languishing in a Salvadoran prison. 3. The conditions of detention are often horrendous. I would support upholding their laws if they executed them a shred of human decency and empathy.

I don't think anyone has that position, so not sure what you're responding to.

Due process

Why is attacking a strawman bad?