When talking about fundamental rights (like say, the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion or ...), I don't understand the thinking that only some people should have them based on some legal criteria. I'm talking out of my ass here but it feels like the kind of legacy that is carried by having stuff like slavery and the like where humans were not equals.

I guess this is why in France we call those fundamental rights human rights and not citizens rights.

My point being: I don't see how the difference you give provides anything other that than the ability to abuse some groups, I don't see any advantage from it.

i suspect you're joking here, but there are people who think this only applies to non-citizens and that they don't deserve due process.

so this is for those people... they can just declare citizens as non-citizens with the same lack of due process and now we're all in the same boat.

can we trust this administration on principles ?

Why risk prosecutorial discretion or judicial review when they pick the judges and are eager to set precedent, test theories

What’s a visa, green card or naturalization certificate worth when they can make you disappear without consequence?

For how long will it apply only to non-citizens? Trump is trying to figure out a way to deport citizens. Admittedly, the citizens are actual criminals, but how long will it be possible not to be a criminal for one thing or another? It appears that disagreeing with the administration is enough for them to at least consider if they can do it.