Originally posted by: Fern
You're mixing apples & oranges.
Indefinte detention does not apply to illegal immigrants, but rather alleged terrorists. And that's Constitutional and in accordance with a law passed by Congress (can't remember the name, but we've had a lengthy thread on it) which Constitutionally allows for the suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus. And here I speak of the detention of US citizens (Padilla etc.) Non-citizens on foreign soil do NOT have US Constitutional rights. There the debate is whether their treatment is in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
Concentration camps evokes military comparisons, again not suitable to the matter of illegals.
If you wanna say the illegals detained have been denied "due process", link it up. I still say the whole resason that they are there, instead of deported already, is because they DO have due process. Not the other way around.
Fern
Fern, I can't find the case law for a couple of the situations you speak. I thought the Padilla case was going to go to the Supreme Court -- but it didn't since the government moved him to a federal prison and charged him accordingly. So, we never really had a challenge to whether his detainment was legal or not. Many seem to think the government would have lost that case if it went to the Supreme Court.
Secondly, you state that non-citizens do not have US constitutional rights. However, my review of what I see on this is that in cases for trials, arrests and detentions, courts have upheld that they do have the same basic rights as citizens. This is not counting the terrorist enemy-combatant stuff, which I think is still is fully unresolved. You also mention that they do not have 4th amendment rights. I can't find any cases that say that either. Do you have a reference for that?
Actually, the Japanese were relocated by a civilian authority, and these camps were called 'concentration camps' by the US government, include FDR himself. But, I disgress...
From what I'm reading on the subject, illegal immigrants are not being held because of due process, it's because if they would be let go on bail or bond, they would be freed back into the country until they case comes up for resolution. So, our government is holding people indefinately. Only the Executive Branch has held that these people can be held indefinately. I don't find a decision where this has been resolved by the courts yet.