You can be detained and deported without first seeing a judge.
The as built does not currently match the plan provided by the constitution and rule of law. Please see your nearest democratic representative to address the problem.
I considered "(is supposed to)" preceding "protect"
"The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-trump-a...
Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
But SV cheers it on
Elections have consequences, and we're all paying them. Some paying a lot more than others.
It’s absolutely a scam intended to route our tax dollars to private prisons. The rest is theater.
I bet the borders are still open to those who are motivated enough to cross.
[1] https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.c...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/kids-in-cages-deb...
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
It's been that way for over 40 years so yes, according to Congress/SCOTUS, this is legal.
Basically, the guy admits that he overstayed the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, but is arguing that the fact INS started processing his adjustment of status application gives him the right to stay in the U.S. until it's resolved:
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
Remember that the whole point of the Visa Waiver Program is that you're conceding up front that you're just visiting and aren't making a claim for asylum or whatever. The idea is that the U.S. makes it easy for you to enter, in return for you agreeing that the U.S. can easily deport you if you overstay.
And being detained for months, without trial, really shows the rule of the law
