The Trump Administration Continues To Attack Due Process
"We have thousands of people that are ready to go out, and you can't have a trial for all of these people," Trump said.

President Donald Trump and his administration continued to assault the concept of due process this week, with Trump claiming that undocumented immigrants shouldn't be entitled to appearances before judges prior to deportation.
"I hope we get cooperation from the courts, because we have thousands of people that are ready to go out and you can't have a trial for all of these people," Trump said in the Oval Office on Tuesday. "It wasn't meant. The system wasn't meant. And we don't think there's anything that says that."
"We're getting them out, and a judge can't say, 'No, you have to have a trial,'" Trump continued. "The trial is going to take two years. We're going to have a very dangerous country if we're not allowed to do what we're entitled to do."
The Trump administration is pursuing its mass deportation program through multiple different strategies, some traditional and some brazenly illegal, but all of them share a bedrock belief that the judicial branch has little to no authority to halt deportations once the government has decided someone is subject to removal.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump wrote, "We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years."
If the Trump administration was genuinely worried about the case backlog, it wouldn't be firing immigration judges. It sacked at least eight immigration judges on Tuesday, on top of two dozen that have resigned or been fired since Trump's second term began.
Vice President J.D. Vance posted similar comments on social media deriding due process recently: "Ask the people weeping over the lack of due process what precisely they propose for dealing with [former President Joe] Biden's millions and millions of illegals. And with reasonable resource and administrative judge constraints, does their solution allow us to deport at least a few million people per year?"
Trump and Vance's claims that due process can be swept aside if it's incompatible with the government's preferred ends inverts the entire point of due process. If the government can't deport millions of people a year while guaranteeing them due process, then it must not deport millions of people a year.
The other rhetorical trial balloon that Trump administration officials and pundits are floating is using immigrants' alleged criminality, both individually and generally, to claim that they have received all the process due to them.
The Trump administration's "border czar," Tom Homan, spoke to reporters this morning about the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who three government officials said was mistakenly sent to El Salvador's most notorious prison along with several hundred other alleged gang members. The Trump administration now refuses to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S., claiming with hearsay evidence or no evidence at all that he is a member of the MS-13 gang, a human trafficker, and a terrorist.
"I'll let the DOJ argue this in court, but I think we removed a public safety threat, gang member, designated terrorist, from the United States who had been ordered deported twice by a federal judge," Homan said. "I think he got plenty of due process. He got more process than Laken Riley got."
Riley was a 22-year-old Georgia woman murdered by an illegal immigrant from Venezuela in 2024. Her murder became a rallying cry for hardline immigration opponents.
Besides the fact that Riley's murder has nothing to do with Abrego Garcia's case—a non sequitur unless Homan thinks that Latinos are interchangeably responsible for each others' crimes—Homan's argument is essentially that the government should lower itself to the behavior of criminals to seek retribution against criminals. That's an argument for less law and order, not more.
But this is a feature, not a bug, of the Trump administration's erroneous and bad-faith claims about due process. Homan previously derided the American Civil Liberties Union's "know your rights" seminars for immigrants and suggested Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) should be investigated by the Justice Department for holding similar webinars.
"They call it 'know your rights,'" Homan said. "I call it 'how to escape arrest.'"
These kinds of comments underscore the importance of guaranteeing civil liberties for everyone and just how hostile the Trump administration is to the basic concepts of constitutional order.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Due Proceas for immigration hearings does not require a jury or anything beyond an immigration judge, and administrative position.
There are 20M here illegally tens of thousands already with final deportation orders already given due process.
They ignored all process to illegally come here.
You're cries of due process are both ignorant and a means to continue allowing unchecked migrations. At the cost of tens of billions of dollars a year, an increased amount of crime, and a disruption of social structure.
You're demanding billions be spent on those awaiting trial. Calling welfare, free legal advice, housing to be provided.
You're aligning with Marxists on this issue.
Just "aligning" with them? I think the track record is long enough to assume they're at least pledging for that club.
Nonsense. Libertarians reach their conclusions about borders and immigration on a very different line of reasoning. It may be poor policy or poor reasoning in some ways, but narrowly agreeing on certain topics does not demonstrate a shared ideology.
If libertarians are guilty of some kind of foolishness here, I would say it is focusing on very narrow matters of supposed principle while ignoring the bigger picture and how current situations make it very difficult to move in a more libertarian direction. Due process is a fine thing, but if an overbroad notion of what it entails prevents any meaningful action on something that is a real problem, then maybe some compromise is appropriate.
I disagree zeb. Primarily based on the fact that open border libertarians ignore all costs and effects of their policy, including the violations of citizens caused by their policy. This is intentional, not principled.
"open border libertarians ignore all costs and effects of their policy"
No they do not. Statists do, open boarder statists do, but libertarians do not. What part of the NAP allows that crap?
"including the violations of citizens caused by their policy" makes no sense. If you mean violations of the NAP, then you are not talking about libertarians. If you mean something else, say so, but "violations of citizens" make no sense.
Yes, they do.
OK, then. "Real" libertarians consider all the costs and effects of open borders, and then do nothing.
But do they remain real libertarians to the end, when their nation and their liberty is gone?
It isn't just on this issue that they align with global marxists.
I'm sure they do, but I'm curious what you have in mind. Very few people are wrong about everything. Most people who aren't complete gibbering idiots have something worthwhile to say at some point.
For example...
When was the last time you saw them address welfare/government spending on immigrants? They seemingly are fine with the distribution of wealth in regards to foreign nationals.
I remember maybe one regulatory article during Biden and the costs, after he lost the election. They seem to prefer to make things more expensive to produce here. Fuck, Boehm even found an expensive American toaster to compare to Chinese prices. I was able to find a 20 dollar American built toaster in 30 seconds. Same cost.
When have they talked about importation of workers replacing the current low income class? In fact they call for more. This pushes more citizens to welfare and benefits.
Where were they to scream due process for J6?
Before the Twitter files they were defending censorship against misinformation.
The often defend the narratives/control of the "expert" class.
Defending the property rights of inventors?
KMW literally wanted to increase income taxes letting the 2017 cuts expire.
Their anti DOGE stance.
If i asked you to make a Marxist argument in the language of libertarians, what would be different?
When they address it it's always in terms of *net* benefit of illegal immigrants - as long as someone benefits more than someone else loses out it's all cool to Reason.
But something I've realized - 'net benefits' is how we got to where we are today.
Especially net benefits for Reason's favored classes and benefactors.
There is no net benefit. They point to the minority that are contributors to ignore the net takers. The taking is greater than the contribution.
Net benefits is approaching Hobbesian levels. Slavery would also be defended under Hobbesian liberttarianism. Group rights over individual.
What happened to judging an idea based on its merits, rather than based on who is advocating for it?
Virtue signaling. Democrats did it first so that makes it ok.
Have you found a single person that doesn't find your statement absolutely retarded?
Hypocrisy is a valid counter to appeals of morality like you attempt.
Open borders and unrestricted immigration is a suicidally horrendous idea. In light of that, we must question the motives of those who advocate it, and how their motives align with other advocates.
In fairness, they are also sex predators.
Organized sexual predation by the power elite is a tradition as old as history.
Come on, man. If some powerful elite guy can sniff girls' hair without consequence, who can?
Likewise for fucking little boys.
The Catholic Church is the power elite? Who knew?
They’re way behind the public school system.
They were for a loooooong time. And I’d be willing to bet they still have their hands in a lot of cookie jars.
The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church absolutely is part of the power elite.
This is just a thin rationalization to justify ignoring people's arguments because you don't want to consider them on the merits.
but narrowly agreeing on certain topics does not demonstrate a shared ideology
OK, I LOLed. Were you around for "Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there."? Maybe you caught one of the dozen or so Priscilla Villarreal articles that went around this place but didn't catch the precisely zero articles that were written about Alex Jones having his media company, not the dollar equivalent, illegally taken from him by a judge and handed to the very people whom he alleged were money-grubbing political activists. Maybe you caught one of the renditions of "Don't Say Gay" or mostly peaceful protests or about how *this time* we can believe the FBI...
Narrowly agreeing on certain topics? LOL. You sound like sarc.
Yes, they have their biases. That doesn't make them Marxists. There are lots of different ways to be wrong or foolish.
I agree Reason doesn't do a great job reporting on this stuff. That doesn't mean they are the opposite of what they claim to be.
I think their biggest problem is that they are terrified of being lumped in with right wing conservatives and want to be the cool kids.
"They might not be Marxists, they might just be really, really insecure, unpopular, and stupid." isn't any less funny.
Funny and accurately descriptive.
This is my issue. If you look at the bios of some of the contributors here, not staff, as well as some of the recent additions to CATO, they clearly come from the Marxist side of thought, just couching their views in libertarian sounding arguments.
If the writers here were intellectually consistent, they wouldn't run from recognizing the issues that go against their public viewpoints. Doing so just makes them useful idiots of the Marxists in pushing a libertarian sounding Marxist argument.
lol you have no idea what Marxism *actually is*
Is this one of those retarded "my definition of true Marxism is impossible to pin down" arguments?
It’s never been tried!
It was tried once on a remote island in the Atlantic and it was a veritable utopia of prosperity and innovation. Till the greedy capitalist sank it to the bottom of the ocean.
Jeff doesn't want to be outed as a Marxist. The difficult part is he had already been outed multiple times.
Sullum wrote about Alex Jones, defending the judgement.
There's also the issue of bringing in millions of people in violation of all immigration laws but demanding exacting due process to rectify that action.
“ Due Proceas for immigration hearings does not require a jury or anything beyond an immigration judge,”
So you believe if the don’t get a hearing with a judge, they haven’t had due process?
“ There are 20M here illegally tens of thousands already with final deportation orders already given due process.”
There aren’t 20 million illegals here. There are between 10 and 14 million according to virtually everyone who’s made educated estimates. 20 million (or the even more batshit 30 million that one of the paleocons claimed the other day) is a paleocon fever dream.
“ with final deportation orders already given due process.”
So you’re saying that anyone who hasn’t gotten final deportation orders should get due process? With a judge? And the judge’s orders should be followed?
“ They ignored all process to illegally come here.”
Agreed. And if they are who the government says they are and are subject to deportation, they should be deported after their trial. Do you agree?
“ You're cries of due process are both ignorant”
Yes, that damned Constitution is so ignorant. Especially the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, according to Jesse, Arbiter of the Constitution.
“ At the cost of tens of billions of dollars a year, an increased amount of crime, and a disruption of social structure.”
Fearmonger much? Immigrants are less, not more, likely to commit crimes. And our social structure is just fine. Despite crazed proclamations about eating pets and rape gangs, our social structure was less disrupted before January 20th than after it. But it’s still just as stable and strong as ever.
“ You're demanding billions be spent on those awaiting trial”
So if protecting rights and following the Constitution is too expensive, just ignore them? How very libertarian of you.
“ You're aligning with Marxists on this issue.”
Exactly what does Karl Marx’s economic ideas have to do with America’s reverence (or, if you’re Jesse, disgust) for the Constitution and inalienable rights?
Either you gave the reading comprehension of an illiterate first grader or are completely retarded.
Mouth the words before replying buddy.
Reason has attacked Trump on this issue over illegals more in the last week than they did in four years of Biden, making political prisoners out of the J6 detainees.
Fuck you Reason.
The Executive unquestionably has the authority under the law and, probably, the Constitution to deport illegal aliens. I agree that "due process" in this case does not require a jury trial. Due process DOES require proper notice and at least an impartial hearing (IMPARTIAL!) to determine if you are, in fact, an illegal alien! Anyone who tries to assert that Trump's ICE and DoJ cannot possibly make a mistake would be justifiably laughed off the dais. When you are in the process of rounding up thousands of people and you accidentally deport an innocent American citizen, the punishment should be incarceration for the official directly responsible and impeachment and removal from office for the upper management who failed to implement due diligence.
They are all getting fair due process.
Due process for deportation does not include a full blown jury trial in superior court. For fuck's sake people. Get a grip.
They really think they can polish this turd.
“ Due process for deportation does not include a full blown jury trial in superior court.”
Who said otherwise? A trial in front of an immigration judge, however, seems to be the bare minimum. Agreed?
they’re just going to keep lying. They don’t give two shits about “due process”. What they care about is installing 20 million illegals since democrat voters.
DONNIE DON'T DO NO DUE PROCESS!
It's a shame that razor-sharp incumbent didn't win last year, eh?
It was just a stutter!
Outside his working hours. You know, 10 to 2.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Janet Reno stole the little brown boy that we were all going to diddle!?! I’m going to vote for the guy whose sole qualification is having the same name as the president from 8 years ago over the guy from the administration that gave us a budget surplus!! Nobody steals the little brown boy we found from us!!!! NOBODY!!!
IANAL and even I have learned that "due process" does not mean getting a trial with 12 jurors and a guaranteed appeal.
It means following the laws, and when the laws says an immigration judge hearing is enough, that's due process.
Let's bring up j6 again, why not? You thunderheads keep bringing up illegal immigrants as if they deserve more due process than citizens. What due process is there from sitting in jail for 2-3 years without trial?
And stop saying "the US" is not returning Garcia to the US.
* He was an illegal immigrant when deported, he'd be an illegal immigrant again when imported.
* He's a citizen of El Salvador in an El Salvador prison. Are you saying Trump should send in the special forces, and that the courts should order him to?
* The only illegal act was violating the 2019 court order forbidding sending him back to his home country, where he was allegedly under threat of retaliation by MS-13. MS-13 has murdered Americans in America. Why haven't they murdered him in the six years since that court order? Why hasn't he been murdered in that hell hole prison full of MS-13 gang members? Something smells fishy about that claim.
* The only judicial remedy for violating a court order is that court finding the culprit in contempt of court. Why hasn't that been done?
* The due process flow for the alleged kidnapping and deportation of Garcia is an investigation and trial. Those are handled by the executive branch, not courts, and just as courts approved Obama exercising prosecutorial discretion by not deporting millions of illegal immigrants with young children, so Trump is exercising prosecutorial discretion by not investigating and prosecution whoever illegally kidnapped and deported Garcia. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, suddenly you got the heebie jeebies? Stalin was right. One murder is a crime. Millions is regrettable.
Clinton deported 12 million people with no trials.
Obama deported 3 million people with no trials.
Trump has hardly deported anyone by comparison.
That's the craziest thing here. 10-20 years ago, Trump's position on immigration (if not his rhetoric) was mainstream in both parties.
Posted the NYMag article in the roundup about the cause. Soros and NGO funding switched their stance.
The objection is more over the how than the what.
No it isn't.
They even defend those given final deportation orders numbnuts.
Remember when you cheered on the Americans attempting to sex traffic Elian Gonzalez?? I’ve never seen a group of people so excited at the prospect of diddling a little brown boy?!?
No faggot, that would be you.
Kill yourself.
I wanted him sent back to Cuba to be with his father…crazy that that was the unpopular opinion!?!
“ Clinton deported 12 million people with no trials.
Obama deported 3 million people with no trials.”
You think they deported all those people without due process? Why?
Do you think they deported them using the procedures that Democrat scum like you were now insisting upon?
They deported them using administrative judges issuing final deportation orders like Trump is dumbass. They didn't have judges blocking it or demanding more due process retard.
The due process flow for the alleged kidnapping and deportation of Garcia is an investigation and trial. Those are handled by the executive branch.
Yeah, but... There is also impeachment which I think is warranted.
The issue is not so much the Guatezulean MS-Trad gangster dude. The issue is Trump is pushing back on court rulings with his disingenuous "It was a mistake...There's nothing I could do," excuse or (attempted?) continuing flights to El Salvador.
Our 3 way checks and balances has been a 2 part checks and balances since Congress went limp. The courts seem primed to go limp too (thinking of the presidential immunity ruling here). If we lose the courts we have a dictatorship.
I suspect Trump isn't competent enough to make himself dictator, but he is a wrecking ball clearing the way for a savvy Obama type who comes in the future.
Maybe the courts, like the Dems, are just giving Trump enough rope to hang himself and Trump is real good at putting nooses around his own flabby neck, but the chances we come out with a better system post-Trump doesn't look good.
Checks and balances among the three branches was always a naive hope. I do not believe that the founders and framers were that naive and ignorant. I do believe that they never considered that people would elect such mendacious politicians, that they thought elections every few years would be good enough, and that they had no experience with lawyers and judges twisting ordinary clear language so much to grab on to more power.
Speaking of twisting clear language, this is sarcasmic in the other thread talking about Article 2:
I think this could be reasonably interpreted to mean Congress can grant money to colleges and universities for research. Maybe music and other art programs.
Again. This is a guy who claims to be libertarian.
That was a fucking wildly hilarious comment from him. Haven't added a bookmark in a while, but fucking worth it.
lawyers and judges twisting ordinary clear language so much to grab on to more power.
Yeah. Lawyers and lawyers that become judges...You're right about that.
lawyers who are lawyers stay lawyers. lawyers who are politicians become judges.
Yeah. That seems right.
Marxism hadn’t been invented in the 18th century. If it had, an amendment criminalizing it with certainly have been part of the constitution. And it should become so now.
If we lose the courts we have a dictatorship.
Trump is testing the waters right now to see what judges can actually do. If it turns out to be nothing then his executive orders will become dictatorial decrees.
Maybe the courts, like the Dems, are just giving Trump enough rope to hang himself
If he keeps fucking around with the economy, the GOP will get swept out of Congress next year. That could pave the way for a successful impeachment. Then what? President Vance? He's just as xenophobic and ignorant about economics as Trump.
I think Vance would be an improvement. He's smarter, he has a future to think about and he doesn’t have the cult of personality. On the downside, he's a politician with Obama level savvy.
Policy-wise I don't think he'd be much of an improvement. Though I do hope that, unlike Trump, he'd respect the courts.
Have you ever thought judges are the ones acting politically retard? When even the 1st and 9th are calling them out?
Did that ever occur to you?
He’s thrilled by it. Cause ultimately, the only way to get rid of these Marxists is to put them down.
If we lose the courts we have a dictatorship.
I am convinced that this is what some commenters want.
People who want a government that "gets stuff done" see things like separation of powers and checks and balances as impediments to action. And rightly so because that's exactly what they are. The reason they're there is because the founders feared government that "gets stuff done". They wanted a government that does things right, not fast, through deliberation and due process. And that's the exact opposite of what Trump and his defenders want. Then they attack those who side with the founders of attacking the Constitution. Their bad faith and malice knows no bounds.
accuse not attack
Checks and balances... like article 3 judges not violating article 2 powers or even creating legislation put of thin air?
The califor is judge on the VOA case literally in her ruling stated the US and Journalists best interests were in funding the VOA, literally usurping an article 2 power in her judgement.
You and Jeff will never admit the judges are in the wrong when you agree with them.
I wish I could say I disagree.
You weaponized the courts and now they’re being used against you. Sad!
Case in point.
You deserve everything that’s coming to you.
I hope he’s brutally raped and murdered by MS 13 or one of the others.
You're gonna need lots more straw. Call your little buddy.
he was allegedly under threat of retaliation by MS-13
He was under threat from Barrio-18 or the 18th Street Gang. A rival to MS-13. In El Salvador, Barrio-18 has since factionated/splintered and dissolved, thus he hasn't specifically been targeted by a weaker faction of a gang that no longer exists.
How they continue to get this wrong after being told so many times what the original order said shows they retarded and dishonest.
They’re just liars.
I'm no modern organized crime aficionado or expert, but my understanding is that at pretty much any point in time, the assertion that he's safer in the US than in El Salvador is/was between selectively interpreted and dubious.
That is, (e.g.) San Salvador might not have been safe for him but (e.g.) Santa Ana was more safe than Los Angeles (to say nothing of the entire intervening states between the two).
Now do Elian Gonzalez.
I mean do your analysis with Elian Gonzalez…he’s too old for Republicans to diddle now. And just think, had you known about Epstein Island in 2000 you could have shipped him there. So strange how the Bush family protected Epstein when the father is a known child groper?? Sickos!!
What's interesting here?
Biden imports them and moves them around the country - no trial. Reason's fine with that.
Trump wants to export them - must have a trial.
Not just a trial but multiple, each of which they can simply ignore triggering more demands for trials.
You know that the only President who averaged more annual deported illegals than Biden was Obama, right? Trump 45 lost to both.
Maybe he should look at how they did it, if his goal really is to deport more people who don’t belong here.
And Nelson comes with act blue talking points. Both counted birder turn backs as deportations dumdum. Trump does not.
They can't think we're this stupid. Thiss is Orwellian in its attempt to get us to agree that 2+2 =5
“If you say it enough times, it becomes “true”.
President Donald Trump and his administration continued to assault the concept of due process this week,
We're getting three of these articles every day, so this is what it means when Reason goes all out in opposition. But the institution most lacking due process in America is the campus Title IX institutions nominally directed by the federal Department of Education.
The Dear Colleague Letter arranging this prohibited standard due process and the training given to "investigators" made it even worse. For example their training includes asserting that an accuser changing her story after being confronted with exculpatory facts made her case more believable rather than less believable, and that women don't lie about rape so a case with no evidence except an assertion and a denial should be resolved in favor of the accuser. In fact the setup is so ridiculous a fair characterization of the process is "accusations prove guilt". Many defenders of Title IX explicitly rejected due process expectations as irrelevant because the cases aren't criminal.
There are dozens of cases that came to be known even though the overwhelming number of cases are kept confidential. While Soave does a reasonable job on this beat and the prior assignee - forget who - was similar we never saw the volume, consistency, or level of outrage that the current conflict has. We've had roughly 40 or so articles covering three cases in a month.
By contrast while Betsy Devos reformed some of the worst abuses (although not nearly enough to result in a fair process) our universities simply refused to adopt them and ultimately the Biden Administration reversed them. Since those initial, now defunct, reforms the issue has largely not been reported on as if it were resolved. Why the discrepancy?
Similar to the difference in Reason's output compare the reactions by American college professors. There are hundreds of different college professor authors protesting this vehemently. But only one college professor protested Title IX to a similar degree: K C Johnson, a previously unknown history professor from Brooklyn College. Laura Kipnis joined later but only after she was targeted.
The cause of this disparity in reactions is the left's cultural power. Both journalists and professors know that vehemently opposing left wing priorities is a career limiting move. By contrast vehemently opposing Trump, Reps, or conservatives is a career enhancer which can be called the Dave Weigel career path. It's important to understand both the difference and the cause so we can appropriately contextualize the current "due process" hysteria. Most of the people screaming about due process don't actually support it when it doesn't coincide with left wing priorities, and even most of those who still support it are far more careful about how they do so when it conflicts with a left wing priority.
Look Marshal. Your team won. Your team is in charge. Your team is enacting is priorities. Your team is doing its mass deportations. And there has been precious little in *actual* opposition (as opposed to rhetorical opposition). The only real opposition was that SCOTUS stopped deportations based on the Alien Enemies Act. That's it. All of the other deportations are going at full speed. What more do you want? I mean you aren't getting 100% of what your team demanded, but you are getting the overwhelming majority of it. Is that not good enough?
The only real opposition was that SCOTUS stopped deportations based on the Alien Enemies Act. That's it. All of the other deportations are going at full speed.
Really? I thought he told them to pound sand.
The government so far is deporting Khalil, they are deporting Ozturk, they are canceling student visas left and right and courts have at best temporarily blocked it but SCOTUS hasn't stopped them.
What has the court actually blocked? The administration is about to be held in contempt of court for stonewalling and ignoring judges. In Trump Land they do what they want, no matter what courts or judges say. The courts have no way to enforce their rulings.
Well I am referring to Khalil and Ozturk mainly. They have been temporarily slowed down. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it yet.
The deportations that don't involve students nor involve AEA, however, haven't been slowed at all.
And here saec defends contempt proceedings by a judge who SCOTUS said had zero jurisdiction. Amazing.
Scotus literally told the inferior Courts to respect article 2 powers.
But you leftist authoritarian who want stalinist like courts don't care.
How can you be in contempt of a court that didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place?
What more do you want?
I want libertarians to care about due process even when it puts them in opposition to left wingers to the same degree they claim to care about it when it helps attack Trump. It would be even better if everyone supported it but as you and sarc constantly show us most people only use these events as triggers to attack those they hate.
I want libertarians to care about due process even when it puts them in opposition to left wingers to the same degree they claim to care about it when it helps attack Trump.
You know what? I completely agree. I think that is a fair standard for anyone to be held to. Do you agree with this standard vis a vis the Right - meaning, do you favor caring about due process even when it puts you in opposition to right-wingers?
I want them to understand what due process actually means.
You first: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
It is amazing how retarded you are.
Let me guess. You linked without reading it? Because it literally states what I've said. There are different levels. And it even shows YOUR interpretation to be wrong such as here.
Substantive due process has been interpreted to include things such as the right to work in an ordinary kind of job, marry, and to raise one's children as a parent. In Lochner v New York (1905), the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a New York law regulating the working hours of bakers, ruling that the public benefit of the law was not enough to justify the substantive due process right of the bakers to work under their own terms.
Illegals don't have a right to work and don't fall under the qualifiers in your very own fucking link.
The due process for immigration violations is long held by the SCOTUS to largely fall under article 2 such as the use of administrative immigration courts.
What a retarded way to fail buddy.
Pretty funny that someone who says "The law is the law" when applied to people he hates, and "Lawfare!" when applied to Trump and his minions, has the balls to accuse people who support due process of being hypocrites.
By the way, the people who assaulted the Capital on J6 got plenty of due process. They got due process good and hard. They got so much due process that you guys shouted "Lawfare!" like a bunch of whiney bitches. And when they were sentenced after due process you screamed about how the law is unfair unfair unfair!
But when Trump disappears people without trial and sends them to foreign prisons you celebrate.
Fuck you Marshal.
You're still defending novel legal construction against your enemies. Wild.
Tell us the give back theory you created to defend Biden again?
By the way, the people who assaulted the Capital on J6 got plenty of due process.
The discrepancy in that case isn't about due process, it's the difference in how each were treated. During BLM rioters had to do something pretty serious to even get arrested, but then almost everyone was first released and then had their cases dismissed before even going to trial. Only serious violence and a handful of dangerous arsons were even prosecuted. No cases without one of these two elements were followed up on after the fact.
By contrast the Feds spent years and thousands of staff searching social media and phone records to identify and prosecute even people who never did anything violent or damaging and put a felony on their record. It was a giant waste of time targeting people who went to a protest.
The supreme court has held that treating one group harsher than another is unacceptable viewpoint discrimination. It infuriates the Jeffsarcs when people oppose viewpoint discrimination because that is their core belief. They believe the law should go above and beyond to protect left wingers and also go above and beyond to punish conservatives. This is their idea of balance.
Marshal - This libertarian wants an impartial hearing to make sure the person they are about to deport is actually an illegal alien and not an innocent American citizen. I do not for one moment believe that officials cannot or will not ever make a serious mistake! It does not take a jury trial to run a hundred people through a record check and put a hold on potential mistakes for further review. This libertarian also thinks the entire immigration process and system and all of the laws enabling it are unconstitutional, counterproductive and wrong! Having implemented a disgusting mess, nothing can be done now to avoid authoritarianism and culture war. Watch out for the fallout, it's going to get worse.
This libertarian also thinks the entire immigration process and system and all of the laws enabling it are unconstitutional, counterproductive and wrong!
Since I don't know what all the processes and laws are I'm not going to say this. But I will say unlimited immigration will result in more restrictions of freedom in America and therefore I support immigration policies which prevent that.
Once you have implemented quotas the entire mess we have now automatically follows. The way to avoid that mess is to let anyone who wants to visit America with a background check and a quick contagious diseases screen at the border. Let them stay as long as they want to as long as they support themselves while here. Let them work at any job they want to work at while here. Let them stay as long as they don't commit any crimes (real crimes, not vices) and deport them if they fail to support themselves or commit crimes after being found guilty and having completed their sentences. Not that complex.
with a background check
You avoided the sticking points with this. What standards are we applying such that a background check matters?
Your team is criminally obstructing our federal government. You are the insurrectionist. You and all your fellow travelers.
Yes and then of course the J6 tribunals and the murder of Ashlee Babbit that never even got an honorable mention in these pages. Reason has zero credibility on the issue of due process.
Those hypocrites at Reason didn't complain when Democrats did bad things. That means they can't complain when Trump does the same and worse!
You and sullum and Jeff cheered those things.
The differing treatments of BLM and J6 rioters shows the same thing. Both were protests that evolved into riots. But according to the media BLM riots are "mostly peaceful" while J6 is an "insurrection". BLM is massively understated to hide reality while J6 is massively overstated to hide reality.
The biggest difference is that J6 lasted three hours and Reps / cons were so horrified it never happened again. BLM lasted 6 months night after night with Dems / left wingers encouraging it throughout. Naturally left wingers think Trump not stopping it before 3 hours in is some sort of huge indictment.
Left wingers just aren't interested in common standards, even against violence. Liberals can't bring themselves to make a stink about it because they're cowards who aren't willing to risk their standing on the left to do so.
Can you bring yourself to even consider the possibility that one might plausibly believe the BLM riots and the Jan. 6 riots were qualitatively different? That they really can't be compared directly on an apples-to-apples basis? I'm not asking you to accept this claim, I'm asking you to consider it to be a valid claim that someone might hold. And if that is the case, wouldn't it be plausible to think that if a person might believe the two types of riots were qualitatively different, that they ought to be treated in different ways?
Only by people who are biased by their support for the underlying political message. This has no bearing on their legal treatment, and people who think it does should be excluded from the legal system and mocked politically.
Huh. So you understand that you just threw under the bus an awful lot of people on Team Red...
But I might be able to agree with your statement, if you provide more context. For example, do you think a person who kills another person accidentally, should be treated legally exactly the same as a person who kills another person intentionally? Provided all else is equal?
Huh. So you understand that you just threw under the bus an awful lot of people on Team Red...
Maybe, that's not a concern for me like it is for you (in reverse). But it's equally likely people on the right agree with me and you pretend otherwise because it suits your demagoguery.
do you think a person who kills another person accidentally, should be treated legally exactly the same as a person who kills another person intentionally?
No, but intent is not a viewpoint so it's clear this circumstance is not analogous.
Everything about BLM was bad for everyone they claimed to help. Is anything better in race relations since BLM became the spokesman? More black people probably have died than if BLM had never been created. The Bigoted, Looting Marxist only wanted power and used race as a weapon Fortunately, the power of RACIST has been neutered as more people wake up to their bullshit . Dumbass Jeffy is truly stupid enough to argue that they were more virtuoso than J6 protesters.
“ the murder of Ashlee Babbit”
You mean the rioters who smashed her way into the Capitol and was trying to breach a position defended by an armed law enforcement officer? Gee, I wonder why the traitorous bitch got ventilated?
Unfortunately the defenders were conscientious and didn’t want to kill the violent rioters they were facing. The world would be a slightly better place if they had put a third eye in more of those traitorous assholes.
Why do you claim to not be an Act Blue employee yet post this leftist retardation lol.
Literally 6 officers on the side of Babbit, no worry.
You defend a blind shoot by an officer who had multiple weapons violations. Because you're an ignorant leftist retard. Amazing.
1. If THEY don't get due process, that means YOU don't get due process. What is to stop the government from declaring you an illegal and hustling you onto a plane to El Salvador? Once the government has said you're an illegal, you've lost your due process and your rights.
2. I ask again: Who here is willing to submit themselves to the level of due process that Garcia actually received?
where was your due process when tens of millions of people were granted your rights illegally?
What precisely was the illegal part? Migrants are legally entitled to apply for asylum here. That asylum process has its own form of due process. AFAIK none of the recent migrants were granted rights that are exclusively associated with citizenship.
lol sorry I totally forgot to not ask you questions that would expose you.
Yes. Lying dumbass Jeffy won't answer that. Our right, not a problem if they are infinged. Illegal migrants? Jeffy gets extra virtuous about their rights.
Here you are again, exhorting the asylum claim as if it applies to every illegal alien.
Also crying about due process as if it has a fixed meaning in every case, while we know that due process means "following the law", which does not mean every illegal alien is owed a jury trial, nor do they need to be found guilty of a crime, nor is any crime necessary, ...
A large group of people that can be removed without *further* due process are people with outstanding deportation orders. These orders should be carefully followed(*). Large swaths of illegal aliens are subject to very limited due process mechanisms, by law, e.g., "Expedited Removals" and "Reinstatement Removals".
The expedited removals are basically "If we catch you while you are jumping the border wall, we're picking you up and deporting you right back on the next bus out." while reinstatement removals are "You've been deported at least once already, you get no more bites at the apple."
(*) I stipulate that Gargia's outstanding deportation order should have precluded him being sent to El Salvador; I stipulate that the government should try hard to get him back from El Salvador and immediately deport him "correctly" the way SCOTUS said: The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. [Where that handling should have been removal to any country other than El Salvador].
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/removal-without-recourse-growth-summary-deportations-united-states
"Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,”
"In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress established streamlined deportation procedures that allow the government to deport (or “remove”) certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Two of these procedures, “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” allow immigration officers to serve as both prosecutor and judge—often investigating, charging, and making a decision all within the course of one day.
Expedited Removal (INA § 235(b))
Expedited removal is a summary process for formally deporting certain noncitizens who do not have proper entry documents and who are seeking entry to the United States at a port of entry (POE), such as a border crossing or an airport, or who are found within 100 miles of the border. Specifically, it applies only if the immigration officer determines that an individual:
* committed fraud or misrepresented a material fact for purposes of seeking entry to the United States;
* falsely claimed U.S. citizenship; or
* is not in possession of a valid visa or other required documentation.
Reinstatement of Removal (INA § 241(a)(5))
Reinstatement of removal applies to noncitizens who return illegally to the United States after having previously been deported. Essentially, DHS “reinstates” the original removal order without considering the individual’s current situation, reasons for returning to the United States, or the presence of flaws in the original removal proceedings. They even may apply it to someone whose initial deportation order was entered in absentia. A person whose order is reinstated is barred from applying to remain in the United States or from seeking to correct any errors that may have occurred in the original deportation.
He did get due process he just didnt get a jury of 12 in superior courts, which is not part of the deportation process.
If he was a citizen he'd have provided the proof and then be done with it.
He is not a citizen. No one is claiming he is. He is in fact affiliated with murderous foreign gangs, as is his OWN CLAIM.
So what is your point? What process did he not receive that he shoudl have?
If he was a citizen he'd have provided the proof and then be done with it.
This implies that he would have had an opportunity to present that proof and to have it evaluated by a disinterested party, such as perhaps a judge, to determine its authenticity. That is called "due process". If there is no due process, what is to stop the government from just ignoring whatever "proof" you deign to offer?
So what is your point? What process did he not receive that he shoudl have?
First of all, Garcia was declared to be a member of a gang based solely on (1) his Chicago Bulls attire and (2) the say-so of an anonymous informant that he had no opportunity to challenge or cross-examine directly. Are you willing to apply that standard to yourself? Are you willing to declare for yourself that you are comfortable with the government declaring you to be in a gang with this standard?
Second, Garcia was retroactively declared to be a terrorist when the government unilaterally declared his gang to be a 'terrorist organization', and he had no opportunity to challenge this designation. Are you willing to declare for yourself that you are comfortable with the government declaring you to be a terrorist with no way for you to challenge that designation?
When he gets MS13 tattooed on his knuckles it is reasonable to suggest he is an adherent of MS13. If his life is in danger from rival gangs to MS13 there is a strong possibility that he has some involvement in gang activity.
The evidence that his knuckle tattoos represent some super-secret code meaning "MS13" came from some rando X nutter. No court ever found that his knuckle tattoos actually correspond to MS13.
Also, he never claimed to be fleeing persecution from a "rival" gang. He claimed to be fleeing persecution from A GANG, Barrio 18. The immigration court accepted his claims and that is why it issued a withholding of removal order to prevent him from being deported to El Salvador. The ONLY reason his claims didn't merit asylum was because he didn't file his claim within the 1-year deadline. That's it. It wasn't for lack of merit.
This implies that he would have had an opportunity to present that proof and to have it evaluated by a disinterested party, such as perhaps a judge, to determine its authenticity. That is called "due process".
1. Due process can mean many things of which this is one. This is not necessarily required in this circumstance.
2. There's no indication he had no opportunity to claim he is a citizen. He wasn't a citizen so he could not save himself using that step but doesn't mean the step doesn't exist.
The judge literally said in the 2019 ruling Garcia provided no proof of his claims. His claims then changed for appeals which the judge again said no proof.
No, the judge said that Garcia did not provide any *physical evidence* for his claims of persecution, but that the judge nonetheless *accepted* his claims of persecution because the *circumstantial* evidence was consistent with his claims.
Where is the war? Maybe Central and South America are full of gangs but then their are gangs in the US and no one is grating asylum to US citizens over that. Sure Haiti is a hell hole but still no reason to bring them here. Let them go to the socialist paradise of Cuba or climb the fence into the Dominican Republic.
But the claims were insufficient reasons to NOT be deported, he just convinced the judge not to deport him to El Salvador. "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here."
1. Due process can mean many things of which this is one. This is not necessarily required in this circumstance.
Umm, it really ought to be required in any deportation case that the person whom the government accuses of being an illegal immigrant have the opportunity to prove proper legal residency. If the due process standard is so low that it doesn't even permit the individual to do that, then the government really does have the power to legally deport anyone they wish, citizens included.
"Ought to be" has yet to be determined. But we all know "due process" is a tool to the left, whatever is proposed will never be enough, and they will coach the aliens on how to make the process take as long as possible. The goal is to make it so ineffective and expensive the government will stop any enforcement activity. Then we can return to defacto open borders again.
"Ought to be" has yet to be determined.
Oh come now. Think about it logically. If 'due process' does not even include permitting the opportunity for an individual to prove legal residency, then what is to stop the government from just declaring anyone they like as being "an illegal", including citizens, and just deporting them all?
But we all know "due process" is a tool to the left
Do you believe in the concept of due process? Yes or no?
He literally claimed that if he were to go back the rival gang would try to kill him. This means he was in a gang.
No he did not. He never said "rival gang". If you think I'm wrong, show me in the court record where he did.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Second, Garcia was retroactively declared to be a terrorist when the government unilaterally declared his gang to be a 'terrorist organization', and he had no opportunity to challenge this designation
He is a guest in our country. He has no right to "challenge" that designation. You're making me laugh.
Why not?
“This implies that he would have had an opportunity to present that proof and to have it evaluated by a disinterested party, such as perhaps a judge, to determine its authenticity. That is called "due process".”
Which he did. In 2019.
Thanks for admitting he got due process.
as is his OWN CLAIM.
No. He never claimed to be in a gang, at least as far as the court records are concerned.
He claimed that the rival gang to MS-13 was a danger to him. He has the MS-13 tattoos.
THAT is an admission sir. You are being intentionally obtuse. This man is almost certainly a murderer and has absolutely taken part in gang activities with murderers. Why are you so hell bent on bringing him back to live here as somebody's neighbor?
He has the MS-13 tattoos
Are you referring to his knuckle tattoos? Those are not "MS13 tattoos" according to law enforcement.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/18/us-news/social-media-flooded-with-theories-about-kilmar-abrego-garcias-ms-13-tattoos/
The allegedly super-secret code that those tattoos represent was invented by some rando nutter on X.
This man is almost certainly a murderer and has absolutely taken part in gang activities with murderers.
He has zero criminal record in any country.
But if you really think he is a murderer, shouldn't he be treated like an accused murderer, as far as the law is concerned? After all, accused murderers get their day in court and the government must meet a certain burden of proof. Shouldn't that also apply to him?
TBF, he did deny being in or affiliated with a gang and instead claimed that the MS-13 rival had been harassing his family business.
However, last I checked, regular street violence was not grounds for an asylum claim…
I ask again: What is to stop the government from declaring you a potato?
Other than it is not at all believable? Nothing.
Can you think of any time, in the entire history of the world, where a government has deliberately lied about a person that they wanted to get rid of, in order to send that person away to certain death at a gulag or concentration camp? Has that ever happened?
Other than it is not at all believable?
So you actually do get it.
So why do you think it is "not at all believable" that the government would 'accidentally' declare you to be not a citizen?
And please answer my previous question.
Other than it is not at all believable?
Why do you think it is not believable?
And please answer my previous question. Has any previous government ever lied about an individual in order to condemn that person to certain death?
Yes. Dumbass, it is just as believable that the government will declare me a potato as to deport me. Either action against me will likely end up with either shots fired ( taking some with me), myself deported, or me scalloped.
And stop with your stupid leading question. You do not argue in good faith.
As in, Oh,Oh, oh, Jeffy are you saying you are an Anarchist and are totally against any government now? Why who would give us due process now? If you hard-on for government control wasn't so obvious you wouldn't be fighting so hard to make regular Americans pay for your warped idea of due process required.
Reason Continues To Attack The Constitution
5A:
14A section 1:
According to this guy, if someone says "Hey, the Constitution says that every person (not citizen but person) has a right to due process" they are attacking the Constitution.
TDS is very real folks. Yes, Trump's supporters are fucking deranged. Look at this guy. If you say the Constitution says what it actually says, then you're attacking it. That, my friends, is derangement on a stick.
I'm not really into feeding your anger.
Great. Because you're terrible at it. Unlike you Trump defenders, I don't get worked up over politics. That's one of the benefits of not voting. More than anything I'm still here because I find y'all's mental illness to be entertaining.
Irony so dense it could form a neutron star.
Lol. He said this thinking people believed it. Fucking hilarious.
You just compared deporting foreigners to the holocaust this morning dummy.
Deportation is not a deprivation of rights you mendacious fuck.
They had due process you retarded fuck.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless
He's not being charged with a crime, so not relevant.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
He's not a citizen, and so not relevant.
Most people try to link the evidence they present to the facts of the case. You should probably try that next time.
You read the 5A and the 14A as honestly as leftists read the 2A. But that's ok because they did it first, right?
Kill yourself
I swear you are getting more retarded the more desperate you get.
that's ok because they did it first, right?
If you're going to make up something to mock people you should probably not pick your own signature tactic.
Yes.
Dems clearly trust cops to decide who can possess a firearm, even after calling them racist murderers who habitually hunt down and gun down unarmed Black men!
He. Got. Due. Process.
Even Jeff admitted it.
The process is that you catch them and you ship them out of the country. That's all they're due.
If doing the right thing would take 200 years, perhaps it's not really the right thing. Or perhaps it should take that long because of it's importance. In any case, I'm sure that Trump/Musk are planning on being around long enough to see the end result and disregard it if they don't like it. Personally, I'll be content to see that process well underway before the end of my own lifetime.
Hey guys, remember when you all were terribly upset that Biden was (supposedly) directing FEMA money to illegal aliens instead of citizens who really needed it? Well, thank heavens Trump is here and he is sending FEMA money where it belongs, to the good hardworking Americans in this country!
Oh wait...
Tornado victims blocked from federal recovery aid after Trump denied request
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/23/weather/trump-denied-disaster-aid-arkansas-tornadoes/index.html
Huh, Trump wants to eliminate FEMA? I don't recall that being a part of his platform when he was running. All I heard was that Biden was spending FEMA money on illegal gang-bangers or something. Weird.
So... you're True Libertarians for FEMA now?
And tariffs. Remember when they were “true libertarians” for invading Iraq and voting for John McStain and Romney??
Maybe someone will tell him about how government rescues and insurance regulations encourage risky behavior since people don't have to pay for their own risks.
I'm calling out Trump for his very obvious demagoguery during the campaign. Which you happily endorse.
I’m calling you out for your crimes against children.
I'm calling out Trump for his very obvious demagoguery during the campaign. Which you happily endorse.
It's kind of amusing watching left wingers decry their own tactics because someone else started using their own playbook against them. They hate the world they made.
Maybe if they'd been less arrogant when we warned them they could have adopted a different style. But no, even now that they're whining about it happening to them they still do it to others showing they will never give it up.
I don't think I've ever not said that Team Blue engages in demagoguery as well. So you are barking up the wrong tree.
It would be nice if you would at least acknowledge in reprehensible behavior. Such as, riling up the mob about "dem illeguls are stealin muh FEMA money!" and then turning around and cutting off FEMA money to everyone.
You know there’s a fundamental difference between giving illegal aliens tax payer money and saying the states should bear “the burden of disaster response and recovery” (which, once upon a time libertarians actually supported), right?
Seems everyone is treating entering the US without permission (e.g. passport, visa, embassy traditional, etc.) as a point in time crime (at the time of crossing the border). I would think it is a crime in process (ongoing as long as here without proper authorization) type of offence.
It seems that if it is an ongoing crime in progress, then removal should proceed due process. After all, you wouldn't try a perp WHILE they are currently trespassing: arrest, arraign, try, but stopping the illicit behavior comes first. After deportation, give them all the due process you want.
So why did Republicans give Cuban illegals fast-track citizenship?? Oh wait, it’s because they would vote Republican in a swing state upon getting citizenship.
Overstaying a visa is a continued crime in progress. Why wouldn't entering illegally and staying here be the same cause for deportation? Reason's logic when it comes to immigration is retarded.
Violation of entrance or visas is a civil matter. The current law is administrative courts. Upheld for decades at this point. That is their due process.
If Garcia's crimes are merely a civil matter, then why was he sent to prison as if he had violated some criminal law?
I can’t find anything that says WE put him in El Salvadoran prison, only that we put him in El Salvador.
We paid them to hold Venezuelan gang bangers since Venezuela refuses to take their citizens back. It’s unclear if we’ve paid them for Garcia. Him being a citizen of El Salvador, I doubt it, but it’s always possible (and indeed a problem if so).
The reporting on this has been pretty sloppy (not helped by the administration not providing clear enough information).
After looking it up, it seems that “Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States, which would only be a point in time crime.
The in-progress one would be unlawful physical presence, which is the civil one
So, I guess they'd need to change that in order to get around the whole messy due process issue...
A large percentage of the illegals here are visa overstays. Solely civil.
Wait, I thought they were pouring over the southern border with calves as big as cantaloupes?
You really can’t stick to one story, can you?
When did I state that?
It is amazing watching the lies and strawman creation of retarded act blue employees.
Likewise both can be true as illegal immigrants are noe estimated to be around 20? Dumbass.
God damn Nelson, do you come here every day yo just embarassed?
By some accounts it’s 50/50. Sometimes 60/40 in favor of border crossing.
So it actually is both.
Here's a real trial lawyer who's represented immigrants in asylum cases explaining how "due process" really works, how its structured, how it changes depending on the property and liberties that are at stake etc.
I find it interesting that in the portion of the lawyer's remarks right before your citation, the lawyer was demanding that the government investigate the lawyers who are representing migrants in asylum cases, because he thinks that the lawyers are suborning perjury, telling their clients to lie about their alleged oppression. What do you think?
Has Trump started sanctioning lawyers who represent immigrants yet? If not then it's only a matter of time. He really doesn't like it when lawyers represent people he hates. And neither do his defenders. It's almost as if Trump and his defenders, who admit to opposing due process for people they hate, don't want anyone they hate to have legal representation either. And it's ok because Democrats tried Trump in a kangaroo court.
Are you going to cheer for him if he does like you cheered the leftist DAs using RICO against trumps lawyers?
No lawyers that represented trump faced difficulties for doing so.
John Eastman
I think that if lawyers are suspected of suborning perjury, those attorneys should be further investigated and disbarred and/or charged, and their perjuring clients, if they can be identified, should have any pending claims dismissed and if this results in deportation orders, well, FAFO.
We know already that various NGOs coach aliens to make asylum claims even if they know they are not here for asylum reasons.
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/former_law_firm_clients_coached_to_lie_in_asylum_cases_may_be_targeted_for
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article265096264.html
Countless illegal immigrants approaching our southern border admit to journalists and agents that they are coming to the United States to work. They are economic migrants, not victims of persecution. Yet NGOs coach them to claim a fear of returning home as the tactic to get them processed into this country.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/15/pro-migrant-ngo-caught-tape-admitting-helping-migrants-lie-claim-asylum/
Pro-migrant advocacy NGO Advocates Abroad has shut down their social media accounts after executive director Ariel Ricker was caught on tape by Canadian conservative activist filmmaker Lauren Southern admitting her group coaches migrants to lie to claim asylum.
Also, I'll just point out that I think the lawyer that you are citing is right in a lot of ways as it pertains to how due process actually works for migrants. It really is a sham, and it is sanctioned by the law. A migrant might get a 2-minute hearing, without a lawyer, in front of an 'immigration judge' (not an Article 3 judge). It is no surprise at all that the government will inevitably rule against the migrant when that is the 'due process' that the migrant receives.
Do you think that this is what the due process for migrants SHOULD be?
Are we talking asylum cases or just your everyday border crossing?
So, is this an admission that "due process" is NOT always what you think it OUGHT to be with (seems like you think it ought to be a judge, jury, lengthy trial with expert witnesses all paid for by taxpayers, and appeals processes that might go on forever), even though aliens are given the due process they are ACTUALLY required to get under the law?
That the law might outline specific notice requirements, timelines, limitations on adjudication, perhaps even "arbitrary" decisions made by Sec. State? And that when properly applied, these limited actions constitute "due process"?
If so, good!
We can now discuss what changes may or may not need to be made without resorting to a frequently made lie that everyone has been "denied their due process rights".
Finally, part of the issue here, particularly as it pertains to Garcia and others, is that he was not just deported, but he was sent to prison. It would be one thing if he was just kicked out and sent back to his home country. One could plausibly justify that the due process standard for this procedure doesn't have to be particularly high or burdensome. But when a guy is being sent to prison? Shouldn't the standard be just a little bit higher for that?
Uh, they supported Bush sacrificing 7000 soldiers to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims…they only care about “winning”.
His imprisonment is an internal matter for the Salvadorans to decide.
Oh stop playing dumb. The US government is paying the El Salvador government to hold him at that prison. The US government didn't send the migrants to El Salvador on a whim.
That’s where he came from. Should we send him to the South Pole?
Would he smuggle penguins into Maryland? Who knows.
He's just parroting the bad faith argument put forth by the Trump administration as to why they can't get the guy back, as if the El Salvadorian government put him in prison in the first place. They did not. They put him in prison because Trump give them millions of dollars. Which means Trump could very easily get the guy back. He just doesn't want to because he's sending a message. He wants people to be afraid of the federal government making an "administrative error" that puts them in prison for life.
And if the Salvadorans choose to release him, the US government has no recourse.
Citation?
I know US is paying to hold Venezuelans in El Salvador. But how we actually paying for Garcia?
Because I've looked and see nothing specific, nor anything that says the US "ordered" El Salvador to hold him in prison, let alone paying for them to do so.
Abrego Garcia was imprisoned by El Salvador.
It would be nice if a single Reason editor watched that. After all of the lecturing about the rule of law not one notices that SCOTUS just overturned 150 years of settled law on behalf of a theoretical class represented by the ACLU in a midnight order without a finding in the district or circuit court and without any response from the defendant, the President. We recently had a circuit court ruling wherein the judge "eloquently" argues that the executive is in danger of losing it's legitimacy if it doesn't knuckle under to the court, blind to the fact that court itself is in greater danger of that. Gorsuch, Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh have some explaining to do or we will be left to the inescapable conclusion that their only real interest is in protecting their phoney baloney racket.
Trump and Vance's claims that due process can be swept aside if it's incompatible with the government's preferred ends inverts the entire point of due process.
Even if the "preferred end" is the survival our nation and culture? The point of due process is to stop the government from defending us against attack?
If the government can't deport millions of people a year while guaranteeing them due process, then it must not deport millions of people a year.
If some law prohibits the government from defending our country against invasion, the government's first and most important responsibility, then that law is suicidally retarded and must be ignored.
Remember when you wanted Elian Gonzalez to remain with his American kidnappers instead of being sent back to his father in Cuba?? That was weird, right??
I have no recollection of stating that opinion.
That’s good, because it only happened in his crazy head.
It happened in real life—you supported the time tested legal concept of “finders keepers, loser weepers” to a little boy who had almost died and lost his irresponsible mother in the process…thank god she died because she would eventually have gotten him killed she was so stupid!
Sure, Ann Coulter, who closet case flamers were attracted to because she has an Adam’s apple, mentioned Elian Gonzalez the other day…but you have no memory of that. Let me guess, you found Coulter “hot”?? 😉
I'm not Ann Coulter.
She has a bigger penis than you. 😉
“ Even if the "preferred end" is the survival our nation and culture?”
Throwing out due process WOULD kill our nation and culture. A few million illegals trying to keep their heads down in a nation of 350 million citizens isn’t in existential danger.
Links to Due Process, never actually read his own link.
Classic retard Nelson lol.
Nelson never heard of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter.
During the Obama administration, 3,094,208 people were deported for illegally crossing the border. I don't recall the Supreme Court rushing in ahead of other courts to demand that each of those individuals get a full trial.
Maybe they were very clearly crossing the border illegally??
Ask the people weeping over the lack of due process what precisely they propose for dealing with [former President Joe] Biden's millions and millions of illegals.
It's a fair question, Ceej. Why didn't you answer it?
The Trump administration now refuses to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
They can't even if they wanted to.
Her murder became a rallying cry for hardline immigration opponents.
It became a rallying cry for millions of normies who were so distracted by bread and circuses that they had no idea how bad things had gone. This shook them out of their stupor.
Only the wokies remained in stupor. On purpose.
Fentanyl deaths and violent crime spiked in 2020 when immigration was at record lows because of Covid.
If I'm not mistaken there are established processes for immigrants to enter the US legally, for foreign students to study in the US legally and for migrant workers to work in the US legally. Enforce the immigration laws as written and the problem is solved.
Well boo fucking hoo. I don't really care, Margaret.
Illegal aliens only right is the one to be deported back to where they came from. Their people, their problem.
Except you have different rules for Cubans because they vote RepooplicKKKunt.