>>938696322
>It doesn't mean a day on court.
It actually literally does. Immigration court, to prove you're A. An immigrant.
Who is B. Not currently protected, and C.
Lacks legal status.
Due process clearly was intended to apply to immigrants. The word Citizen is used 10 times in the constitution, all of those times specifically intended to differentiate non-citizens from citizens. The word person appears 28 times, and was distinctly written with the intent, each and every time, to mean all individuals regardless of citizenship, as a contrast to "citizen" or "citizens."
If they didn't intend for EVERY person to receive due process, they would've specified. They specified that foreign nationals, meaning diplomats who are only beholden to the laws of their home country, didn't have a right to due process. They were prescient enough to specify citizen ve non-citizens every single other time, but Republicans want us to all believe the founders just misspoke this time.
They specified the amount of due process, and what it protects, life, liberty, and property. Those things can be attained and held without citizenship, and you can be tried under the laws of the United States without citizenship (the immigration law is an example of this exact point.) so you are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I don't understand how many times I have to re-read the constitution to redhats.