Muslim World Report

JD Vance's Threat to Due Process for Non-Citizens

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 2, 2025 9:35 AM | 7 min read | 1296 words

TL;DR: JD Vance’s remarks about due process for non-citizens present a significant threat to civil rights that could foster systemic inequalities. His rhetoric reflects a concerning trend in American politics that undermines foundational principles of justice. This blog explores the implications of such views, including potential normalization of draconian measures and the need for organized opposition.

The Case of JD Vance: A Dangerous Precedent for Due Process

In a recent statement igniting substantial controversy, JD Vance, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, expressed troubling views regarding the treatment of an alleged MS-13 member. This has sparked critical debates about the implications for due process within the U.S. legal system. By questioning the necessity of due process for non-citizens, Vance exemplifies a concerning trend in American politics where constitutional rights—purportedly universal—are selectively applied based on citizenship status or political affiliation. This situation reflects broader issues within the American legal framework and impacts the global perception of justice and human rights.

Implications of Vance’s Statements

Vance’s suggestions about reconsidering legal protections for marginalized groups, particularly non-citizens, reveal a growing discomfort within certain political circles with the foundational principles of due process. Such principles are essential for a just society, and scholars have noted that their erosion is often facilitated by rhetoric stemming from fear and prejudice:

  • O’Neal et al. (2016)
  • De Genova (2007)

In a climate where political rhetoric incites fear, trust in the legal system may further erode (Huddy & Feldman, 2011). This trust dissolution risks cultivating a culture of punitive justice that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, including immigrants and communities of color.

Vance’s comments have implications that extend beyond the courtroom, influencing public opinion, shifting political discourse, and catalyzing legislation that undermines the rights of non-citizens and marginalized communities. Eric Posner (2005) argues that government manipulation of due process in the name of security can erode public confidence, framing legitimate political dissent as a threat. As the U.S. grapples with its identity on the global stage, such remarks risk diminishing its standing as a proponent of human rights and justice.

The Potential Normalization of Vance’s Views

What if national conversations began to embrace Vance’s perspective on due process for non-citizens? Such a shift could lead to significant legal and societal ramifications, normalizing discourse that endangers the rights of specific groups. Potential consequences include:

  • Increased laws prioritizing punitive measures over rehabilitation
  • Augmented penalties for non-citizens
  • Escalated racial profiling by law enforcement
  • Immediate deportations without due legal process

The erosion of rights for one group often instigates a domino effect, jeopardizing other marginalized groups. The principle of equal protection under the law, enshrined in the Constitution, is fundamentally at stake (Nicholson, 2020).

On a global scale, this shift would project a troubling image of the United States, suggesting a willingness to infringe on the rights of the vulnerable under security or political expediency. International human rights organizations could categorize the U.S. as a state where democratic guarantees are failing, thereby isolating it from allies concerned with the rule of law (McCulloch, 2003).

The Risks of a Silent Acceptance

What if the absence of backlash to Vance’s rhetoric signals a disturbing acceptance of these ideas within American society? The lack of significant public dissent could embolden not only Vance but also other political figures with similar views, fostering legislative changes that institutionalize these viewpoints and further erode the foundations of equality. Consequences of this could include:

  • Diminished law enforcement accountability
  • Expanded government discretion against individuals based on status rather than actions
  • A broader acceptance of surveillance and civil liberties erosion

Internationally, the U.S. could lose its credibility as a champion of human rights. There is a risk that nations reliant on American guidance in democratic practices might shift allegiances or adopt more authoritarian measures, claiming that if the U.S. disregards due process, so can they (Moyn, 2011).

A Call for Organized Opposition

What if Vance’s views provoke widespread backlash from civil rights groups, lawmakers from both parties, and the public? An organized response could halt the normalization of such dangerous rhetoric. Activists may leverage:

  • Social media
  • Public demonstrations
  • Legal challenges

These efforts could emphasize the necessity of upholding due process for all individuals, regardless of citizenship status. Such mobilization could elevate this issue within public consciousness, presenting a counter-narrative highlighting the importance of protecting the rights of all individuals as foundational to American democracy (Chávez, 2013).

A strong response could reshape future political discourse and remind politicians of the critical importance of constitutional protections. This movement could enhance solidarity among marginalized communities, uniting diverse factions under a shared commitment to justice.

Furthermore, organized opposition could lead to the introduction of new laws that reinforce civil rights and due process protections for all individuals in the U.S. Advocates for justice may also spotlight systemic inequities, pushing for reforms that emphasize rehabilitation over punitive measures.

Internationally, strong domestic pushback against Vance’s rhetoric could reaffirm the U.S.’s role as a leader in promoting human rights, reclaiming its narrative as a protector of freedoms and aligning itself with global advocates for human rights (Pennock, 2018).

Strategic Actions for Stakeholders

In the wake of Vance’s controversial comments, various stakeholders have opportunities to respond strategically:

  1. Lawmakers should recognize the implications of their rhetoric and collaborate to safeguard constitutional due process for everyone.
  2. Civil rights organizations must amplify advocacy efforts, mobilizing grassroots campaigns focused on educating the public and lawmakers about the dangers of disregarding due process.
  3. The media carries a responsibility to provide context and analysis around these statements, emphasizing historical precedents regarding eroded civil liberties and holding public figures accountable for their implications.
  4. Everyday citizens can voice concerns and advocate for the protection of due process by engaging with representatives, participating in community discussions, and ensuring the rights of all individuals are practiced in everyday life.

By standing together against potential erosion of due process for non-citizens, we reinforce the core values underpinning American democracy and send a clear message: the rights of all must be protected. The stakes are too high for complacency or silence.

As we navigate this complex legal and political landscape, the implications of Vance’s statements resonate far beyond the immediate context. They intersect with broader discussions of human rights, justice, and the very fabric of American democracy. It is crucial that stakeholders at all levels engage thoughtfully and strategically to uphold the foundational principles of due process for every individual and push back against the rising tide of exclusionary rhetoric threatening to undermine these principles.

References

Awan, I. (2011). The erosion of civil liberties: pre-charge detention and counter-terror laws. The Police Journal Theory Practice and Principles.
Bertilsson, T. M. (2006). Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. The Canadian Journal of Sociology.
Chávez, K. R. (2013). Queer migration politics: activist rhetoric and coalitional possibilities. feminists@law.
De Genova, N. (2007). The production of culprits: from deportability to detainability in the aftermath of “Homeland Security.” Citizenship Studies.
Feijóo, C., et al. (2020). Harnessing artificial intelligence (AI) to increase wellbeing for all: the case for a new technology diplomacy. Telecommunications Policy.
Huddy, L., & Feldman, S. (2011). Americans respond politically to 9/11: understanding the impact of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath. American Psychologist.
Moyn, S. (2011). The last utopia: human rights in history. Choice Reviews Online.
Nicholson, A. (2020). The frailty of rights in a politically charged atmosphere. Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice.
O’Neal, C. R., et al. (2016). Grit under duress. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences.
Pennock, P. E. (2018). From 1967 to Operation Boulder: The erosion of Arab Americans’ civil liberties in the 1970s. Arab Studies Quarterly.
Posner, E. A. (2005). Political trials in domestic and international law. Duke Law Journal.
Thornicroft, G., et al. (2010). WPA guidance on steps, obstacles and mistakes to avoid in the implementation of community mental health care. World Psychiatry.

← Prev Next →