Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

---

Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

---

Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.

---

Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.

---

Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA

---

That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.

---

If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger

---

You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.

---

If slavery was legal, would you follow the law or be totally against it?

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

---

Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

---

Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.

---

Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.

---

Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA

---

That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.

---

If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger

---

You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.

---

Dont you agree that we should be able to get rid of 10-15 million criminal illegal aliens?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

---

Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

---

Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.

---

Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.

---

Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA

---

That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.

---

If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger

---

You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.

---

If slavery was legal, would you follow the law or be totally against it?

---

I'd make a choice, not say one thing and do another. That's the weirdest analogy I've seen in a long time, though. Supporting due process is nothing like supporting slavery.

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

---

Good post and thanks for posting.

A hypothetical: A policeman in NYC suspects an individual is illegally in the USA. There is no passport or other documentation. What does 'due process' look like for this individual?

---

For the random illegal alien taken into custody, the scenario would normally be to be held until a deportation hearing before an immigration judge can occur.
Then they would get a hearing (of some sort) before deportation.

For members of TDA and other transnational organizations covered by the Alien Enemies Act declaration by Trump, there is no recourse other than to contest the XO itself, which can occur but cannot be a defense against deportation.
Then they would get a hearing (of some sort) before deportation.

"defense against deportation" is the fulcrum which launched +20m illegal aliens seeking asylum. Illegal aliens apprehended were well coached to claim asylum if caught by ICE, as that would put deportation proceedings on hold while a designated refugee officer reviewed the claim. That is per se not the problem. Where the system broke down was that the number of illegals arriving to claim asylum swamped the processing capacity of a limited number of refugee officers. Asylum has a statutory cap of 125K per year. Not surprisingly, ICE budgeted enough asylum officers to process that number - 125K. Problem is, there were nearly 2x that number of people walking across the border per MONTH. So an asylum claim by a an illegal alien was a get out of jail card pending a hearing that could take up to 20 years to hear. (and since none of those claiming asylum were remotely qualified for it, most just never showed up for a hearing. They were already present in the USA with no real prospect of ever being found & deported, so why bother for a hearing they knew they would lose?)

Deportation is an adversarial legal proceeding, but deportees are not afforded a public defender if they cannot afford their own attorney. In reality, there is really little for them to litigate. If they crossed our border illegally and do not qualify for POLITICAL asylum, they are going home. Economic refugees are disbarred. Just being poor & hungry is no basis. Similarly, being poor & hungry in a crime ridden neighborhood is not a legal basis for asylum. And, of course, any non-citizen is subject to deportation via executive branch immigration courts, even on what can appear to be frivolous grounds, to include being old & sick. Law has a "public charge" prohibition. Someone with a valid visa can be refused entry or deported if they are deemed to be a burden on Medicare or Medicaid.
There has to be a hearing to determine their status as illegal. They aren't taken to the closest border crossing and expelled.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

---

Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

---

Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.

---

Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.

---

Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA

---

That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.

---

If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger

---

You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.

---

If slavery was legal, would you follow the law or be totally against it?

---

I'd make a choice, not say one thing and do another. That's the weirdest analogy I've seen in a long time, though. Supporting due process is nothing like supporting slavery.

---

You said we should follow the law, so I'm asking if there's any lines the law crosses which you'd refuse to follow.

---

historian said:

---

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

---

Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

---

Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.

---

Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.

---

Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA

---

That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.

---

If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger

---

You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.

---

If slavery was legal, would you follow the law or be totally against it?

---

I'd make a choice, not say one thing and do another. That's the weirdest analogy I've seen in a long time, though. Supporting due process is nothing like supporting slavery.

---

You said we should follow the law, so I'm asking if there's any lines the law crosses which you'd refuse to follow.

---

Sure, if the law required me to do something morally evil.

---

historian said:

---

Actually, that is the only issue. In totality. That is all that matters: they are illegal, have no right to be here, and must be removed as expeditiously as possible.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.

---

He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?

---

Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?

---

Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.

---

You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.

---

Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State

---

Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.

---

So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

---

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.

---

So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?

---

As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.

---

You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?

---

the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

---

Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

---

Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.

---

Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.

---

Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA

---

That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.

---

If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger

---

You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.

---

If slavery was legal, would you follow the law or be totally against it?

---

I'd make a choice, not say one thing and do another. That's the weirdest analogy I've seen in a long time, though. Supporting due process is nothing like supporting slavery.

---

You said we should follow the law, so I'm asking if there's any lines the law crosses which you'd refuse to follow.

---

Sure, if the law required me to do something morally evil.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Actually, that is the only issue. In totality. That is all that matters: they are illegal, have no right to be here, and must be removed as expeditiously as possible.

---

If Trump cared about the law, he would take care not to violate it himself.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

When you allow tens of millions illegal immigrants to remain, you inevitably include an unknown number of violent criminals, traffickers, and cartel operatives among them. Since we have no reliable vetting process once they're already inside the country, even a small percentage equates to a large public safety risk.

Judges can and frequently have blocked executive enforcement actions through nationwide injunctions, effectively halting deportations across the entire country for months or years at a time. They can't abolish deportation in principle, but they can and do paralyze it in practice. The "bounds of the Constitution" you invoke are already being stretched by activist courts through creative interpretations of due process and administrative law.

You're framing this as if Trump is claiming unlimited power. He's not. Immigration enforcement, including mass deportation falls squarely within the executive branch's plenary powers under the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, Fiallo v. Bell). The judiciary's role is extremely limited when it comes to immigration policy. Judges are overstepping by pretending they have the right to micromanage enforcement decisions based on their personal political views.

Stop repackaging political disagreement as constitutional concern.

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Here's a new one. I suspect it will be the one that causes the Supreme Court to do something about all these outlaw judges

🚨BREAKING: U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston puts out an order banning Border Patrol from arresting criminal aliens without a warrant
pic.twitter.com/n7wIRBKg1y

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 30, 2025

---

One can hope but I have no confidence in any judges to follow the law or the constitution.

It's all an elaborate plot to provide an excuse to impeach Trump again. It's idiotic law fare again and again without a sound basis.

---

Dems are determined to destroy the traditional culture and political system of the United States.

As Dems realize they have permanently lost the white vote.

---

And rapidly losing the Hispanic and Black vote

---

Trump has not done all that much with the black vote.

Suspect Dems will rebuild their black base very quickly if the economy tanks.

---

Before last election cycle, when was the last time anyone saw that many cracks in the Ds race based voting block? Huge numbers? No. First time in 3 generations that Ds are concerned? Yes.

---

Trump's 'success' with black voters has been greatly overblown.

And if the economy tanks the Dems will dominate that segment of our electorate very easily.

---

I dont think you are giving blacks enough credit. Some smart cookies out there... When they see fakers like Hakeem Jeffries and Kamala Harris, they know they are better than that

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

That's easy...we can't. But you are absolutely right that politics is the overriding concern here. Not the exaggerated fear of crime that Trump is promoting.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

What do you recommend?

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

That's easy...we can't. But you are absolutely right that politics is the overriding concern here. Not the exaggerated fear of crime that Trump is promoting.

---

Let's take a look a that. They can't legally work, so they have to lie on applications. That's a crime if its a federal or state or city, or country job. They can't legally vote in federal elections or in many states, so they fill out SS paperwork or the like to be able to. That's a crime. They take federal and state money. That's a toss-up, as some of the states cater to criminals, but in the other states, that's a crime. Many harbor other criminal illegal aliens, that's a crime. Some illegals transport other illegals, that is human trafficking, and that's a crime. Some are deported and re-enter; that's a crime. The list goes on and on when you say that there is an exaggerated fear of crime.

No illegal is free from crime. That's why they get the term "illegal"

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

That's easy...we can't. But you are absolutely right that politics is the overriding concern here. Not the exaggerated fear of crime that Trump is promoting.

---

Let's take a look a that. They can't legally work, so they have to lie on applications. That's a crime if its a federal or state or city, or country job. They can't legally vote in federal elections or in many states, so they fill out SS paperwork or the like to be able to. That's a crime. They take federal and state money. That's a toss-up, as some of the states cater to criminals, but in the other states, that's a crime. Many harbor other criminal illegal aliens, that's a crime. Some illegals transport other illegals, that is human trafficking, and that's a crime. Some are deported and re-enter; that's a crime. The list goes on and on when you say that there is an exaggerated fear of crime.

No illegal is free from crime. That's why they get the term "illegal"

---

None of that is rape, murder, or terrorism. None of it is endangering the public. None of it is any worse than what Trump did when he sent those people to CECOT without due process.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

That's easy...we can't. But you are absolutely right that politics is the overriding concern here. Not the exaggerated fear of crime that Trump is promoting.

---

Let's take a look a that. They can't legally work, so they have to lie on applications. That's a crime if its a federal or state or city, or country job. They can't legally vote in federal elections or in many states, so they fill out SS paperwork or the like to be able to. That's a crime. They take federal and state money. That's a toss-up, as some of the states cater to criminals, but in the other states, that's a crime. Many harbor other criminal illegal aliens, that's a crime. Some illegals transport other illegals, that is human trafficking, and that's a crime. Some are deported and re-enter; that's a crime. The list goes on and on when you say that there is an exaggerated fear of crime.

No illegal is free from crime. That's why they get the term "illegal"

---

None of that is rape, murder, or terrorism. None of it is endangering the public. None of it is any worse than what Trump did when he sent those people to CECOT without due process.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

When you allow tens of millions illegal immigrants to remain, you inevitably include an unknown number of violent criminals, traffickers, and cartel operatives among them. Since we have no reliable vetting process once they're already inside the country, even a small percentage equates to a large public safety risk.

Judges can and frequently have blocked executive enforcement actions through nationwide injunctions, effectively halting deportations across the entire country for months or years at a time. They can't abolish deportation in principle, but they can and do paralyze it in practice. The "bounds of the Constitution" you invoke are already being stretched by activist courts through creative interpretations of due process and administrative law.

You're framing this as if Trump is claiming unlimited power. He's not. Immigration enforcement, including mass deportation falls squarely within the executive branch's plenary powers under the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, Fiallo v. Bell). The judiciary's role is extremely limited when it comes to immigration policy. Judges are overstepping by pretending they have the right to micromanage enforcement decisions based on their personal political views.

Stop repackaging political disagreement as constitutional concern.

---

There are an unknown number of criminals in the native population as well. Keep a list of crimes committed by citizens and by immigrants, and see which list is longer.

If you read these cases, you'll find nothing radical about what the judges are doing. As I've shown you, even respected conservative judges agree. Trump's latest defeat was in the Southern District of Texas, the same venue he fought tooth and nail to get into because he didn't like the DC court. Trump's problem here is with the law, not with activist judges.

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

That's easy...we can't. But you are absolutely right that politics is the overriding concern here. Not the exaggerated fear of crime that Trump is promoting.

---

Let's take a look a that. They can't legally work, so they have to lie on applications. That's a crime if its a federal or state or city, or country job. They can't legally vote in federal elections or in many states, so they fill out SS paperwork or the like to be able to. That's a crime. They take federal and state money. That's a toss-up, as some of the states cater to criminals, but in the other states, that's a crime. Many harbor other criminal illegal aliens, that's a crime. Some illegals transport other illegals, that is human trafficking, and that's a crime. Some are deported and re-enter; that's a crime. The list goes on and on when you say that there is an exaggerated fear of crime.

No illegal is free from crime. That's why they get the term "illegal"

---

None of that is rape, murder, or terrorism. None of it is endangering the public. None of it is any worse than what Trump did when he sent those people to CECOT without due process.

---

However all of it is stealing from the American taxpayer. And that is much worse then sending a MS13 gang member to CECOT, the haven for whats left of MS13.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

When you allow tens of millions illegal immigrants to remain, you inevitably include an unknown number of violent criminals, traffickers, and cartel operatives among them. Since we have no reliable vetting process once they're already inside the country, even a small percentage equates to a large public safety risk.

Judges can and frequently have blocked executive enforcement actions through nationwide injunctions, effectively halting deportations across the entire country for months or years at a time. They can't abolish deportation in principle, but they can and do paralyze it in practice. The "bounds of the Constitution" you invoke are already being stretched by activist courts through creative interpretations of due process and administrative law.

You're framing this as if Trump is claiming unlimited power. He's not. Immigration enforcement, including mass deportation falls squarely within the executive branch's plenary powers under the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, Fiallo v. Bell). The judiciary's role is extremely limited when it comes to immigration policy. Judges are overstepping by pretending they have the right to micromanage enforcement decisions based on their personal political views.

Stop repackaging political disagreement as constitutional concern.

---

There are an unknown number of criminals in the native population as well. Keep a list of crimes committed by citizens and by immigrants, and see which list is longer.

If you read these cases, you'll find nothing radical about what the judges are doing. As I've shown you, even respected conservative judges agree. Trump's latest defeat was in the Southern District of Texas, the same venue he fought tooth and nail to get into because he didn't like the DC court. Trump's problem here is with the law, not with activist judges.

---

It's irrelevant how "respected" a judge is when the legal reasoning is wrong. Cherry-picking a few rulings you like doesn't change the broader pattern: courts routinely stretch statutory interpretations and procedural technicalities to block immigration enforcement, often in ways that defy decades of precedent affirming executive authority in this area. Trump's loss in one forum doesn't magically legitimize judicial overreach elsewhere.

The fact remains: enforcing immigration law is an executive function. Judges who twist administrative law into a political weapon against enforcement aren't following the law…they're rewriting it under the pretense of neutrality.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

1. Citizens must come before illegals in any nation which will endure.

2. The three branches are co-equal. In no way does that make a District judge equal to the President of the United States.

3. MS-13 and Tren de Aragua are among the worst, most violent criminal gangs operating in Central and North America. Focusing on protecting the gang while ignoring the pain and suffering of their victims is unconscionable.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

That's easy...we can't. But you are absolutely right that politics is the overriding concern here. Not the exaggerated fear of crime that Trump is promoting.

---

Let's take a look a that. They can't legally work, so they have to lie on applications. That's a crime if its a federal or state or city, or country job. They can't legally vote in federal elections or in many states, so they fill out SS paperwork or the like to be able to. That's a crime. They take federal and state money. That's a toss-up, as some of the states cater to criminals, but in the other states, that's a crime. Many harbor other criminal illegal aliens, that's a crime. Some illegals transport other illegals, that is human trafficking, and that's a crime. Some are deported and re-enter; that's a crime. The list goes on and on when you say that there is an exaggerated fear of crime.

No illegal is free from crime. That's why they get the term "illegal"

---

None of that is rape, murder, or terrorism. None of it is endangering the public. None of it is any worse than what Trump did when he sent those people to CECOT without due process.

---

However all of it is stealing from the American taxpayer. And that is much worse then sending a MS13 gang member to CECOT, the haven for whats left of MS13.

---

Illegal immigrants aren't parasites. They pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are not 15 million immigrant rapists, murderers, and terrorists in the US. If crime is the real concern, we can address it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.

I see no reason to believe judges would permanently end deportations, but it's completely irrelevant. They have no power to do that.

Whiterock has deftly side-stepped the real issue as he so often does. No one is denying that the executive has broad powers in the realm of immigration. Just not the unlimited powers that Trump is claiming.

---

However, there are 15 million criminal illegal aliens. How can we get these criminals out of our country before the Dems make them legal just so they can vote leftist?

---

That's easy...we can't. But you are absolutely right that politics is the overriding concern here. Not the exaggerated fear of crime that Trump is promoting.

---

Let's take a look a that. They can't legally work, so they have to lie on applications. That's a crime if its a federal or state or city, or country job. They can't legally vote in federal elections or in many states, so they fill out SS paperwork or the like to be able to. That's a crime. They take federal and state money. That's a toss-up, as some of the states cater to criminals, but in the other states, that's a crime. Many harbor other criminal illegal aliens, that's a crime. Some illegals transport other illegals, that is human trafficking, and that's a crime. Some are deported and re-enter; that's a crime. The list goes on and on when you say that there is an exaggerated fear of crime.

No illegal is free from crime. That's why they get the term "illegal"

---

None of that is rape, murder, or terrorism. None of it is endangering the public. None of it is any worse than what Trump did when he sent those people to CECOT without due process.

---

However all of it is stealing from the American taxpayer. And that is much worse then sending a MS13 gang member to CECOT, the haven for whats left of MS13.

---

Illegal immigrants aren't parasites. They pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

---

The problem is they are illegal and do not belong here. Whether they pay taxes or do not pay taxes is immaterial to the problems caused by them being here.

---