Amerika

The tin-drum bangers always have a new talking point. This week, it is that illegal aliens deserve due process.

The courts distinguish duties (legal responsibilities) to different groups of people based on citizenship status just like they do to owners, guests, and trespassers. There is no group to whom you have no duty, but duties are not equal either.

Discussion of those different roles requires a different article, but for now we should look at the question of due process. Affording due process to illegals would entitle each to a lengthy trial, during which time they would stay in the country, pushing out numerous offspring.

The Left likes to tell us that illegals require due process to be deported, but at the same time, acknowledge that due process is not required for deportation:

While applying for an entry visa, the U.S. government claimed, Leili concealed his service in the Totenkopfverbände — the infamous Death’s Head units of the SS, which ran the Nazi concentration and extermination camps. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that such an omission was sufficient grounds for denaturalization and deportation. If my father could prove that Leili lied, the United States could strip him of his citizenship and kick him out of the country.

Any presence in the country based on fraud vitiates citizenship. By the same token, those who are present in the country illegally cannot have citizenship, and should

Any fraud in presence in the country is enough to revoke a visa, citizenship, or presence. No courts are required.

In other words, this is a type of strict liability crime:

In both tort and criminal law , strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of their intent or mental state when committing the action. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses.

Strict liability means that it does not matter whether you meant to do it or not, you are guilty merely by what you possess or where you are, which in the case of immigration, means that being illegally in a country is a crime that does not require a trial.

Strict liability in immigration means that being illegally present is itself a crime and grounds for revokation of your ability to be there:

A second objection is that many immigration offences lack a sufficient culpability
requirement or are offences of strict liability. Indeed, one of the classic cases of strict
liability is the immigration case of Larsonneur (1933) in which a French woman was found
guilty of no more than being ‘an alien’ illegally landed, through no fault of her own, on
English soil.18 Many modern immigration offences render would-be immigrants or
refugees liable for serious offences in respect of which liability is satisfied by limited
knowledge requirements or by strict liability alone. For example, one of the most
commonly prosecuted of immigration offences is section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration
Act 2004, the strict liability offence of failure to produce a passport (Aliverti 2012a: 103).

Similar to trespassing law, this relies on the fact that if you do not have the right to be somewhere, you do not have appeal against being removed from it. This is what is being done to illegal aliens and it is consistent with at least a thousand years of law.

Tags: illegal aliens, immigration, strict liability