Fact check: What legal rights do detained legal immigrants have during ICE proceedings?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, detained legal immigrants have several fundamental rights during ICE proceedings, though these rights are often compromised in practice:

Constitutional Rights:

• Due process protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply to all persons within U.S. borders, regardless of immigration status ^{[1] [2]}
• The right to notice and an opportunity to be heard in court before deportation ^[1]
• The right to a fair hearing during immigration proceedings ^[3]

Specific Procedural Rights:

• The right to a bond hearing for those held in ICE detention ^[4]
• The right to humane treatment while in detention ^[5]
• The right to legal access and communication with attorneys, though this faces significant barriers in practice ^[6]

Vulnerable Populations:

• Lawful permanent residents (green card holders) can face removal proceedings if convicted of certain crimes, as demonstrated by cases like Sonny Lasquite and Chuong Dong ^{[7] [8]}
• Green card holders have the right to live permanently in the U.S. unless they commit actions that make them removable under immigration law ^[8]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several critical contextual elements that significantly impact the reality of these rights:

Policy Implementation Challenges:

• The Trump administration's policies have resulted in arrests, detention, and fast-track deportations of people who appeared for scheduled court hearings, effectively stripping them of due process rights ^[3]
• New policies prevent judges from granting bond to anyone held by ICE who entered without documentation, resulting in unnecessary detention ^[4]
• USCIS has initiated removal proceedings against 26,000 aliens since February under new guidance responding to executive orders ^[9]

Systemic Barriers:

• The current immigration system often fails to provide adequate due process, with attempts to bypass immigration courts entirely ^[1]
• Detainees at facilities like the 'Alligator Alcatraz' face significant barriers in communicating with attorneys and seeking bond release ^[6]
• ICE has violated the law by holding immigrants in inhumane conditions at facilities like the New York field office ^[5]

Enforcement Priorities:

• Immigration authorities are targeting long-term residents with decades-old criminal convictions, raising questions about prosecutorial discretion ^[8]
• The focus on national security, public safety, and immigration system integrity has led to increased enforcement actions ^[9]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question, while neutral in tone, presents an incomplete picture by focusing solely on legal rights without acknowledging the substantial gap between rights on paper and rights in practice:

Omitted Reality:

• The question fails to mention that constitutional due process rights are being systematically undermined through policy changes and enforcement practices ^{[3] [1]}
• It doesn't address that even legal immigrants with green cards face detention and removal for past criminal convictions, sometimes decades old ^{[7] [8]}
• The question omits the fact that humane treatment rights are being violated in detention facilities across the country ^[5]

Beneficiaries of Limited Disclosure:

• Immigration enforcement agencies benefit from public focus on theoretical rights rather than practical limitations, as it reduces scrutiny of their operations
• Political figures supporting aggressive immigration enforcement benefit from the perception that due process is being maintained when evidence suggests otherwise
• Private detention facility operators benefit from reduced attention to conditions and legal access issues that could prompt costly reforms

The question's framing suggests that legal rights are being respected, when the evidence shows that New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed legal briefs calling for court intervention to stop inhumane conditions ^[5], and judges are expressing skepticism about the adequacy of legal protections for detainees ^[6].