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.

---

Nice try.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

Tell that to Assassin.

---

Everything I have read from Assassin tells me that he is in favor of removing all of these illegals as I do. In your statement "illegal immigrants aren't parasites", I would respectfully disagree. Numerous illegals were set up in high dollar hotels around the country unless my eyes were deceiving me in the videos. They were given cash cards in many cases and food cards. They used emergency rooms as their health care stops or hospitals in smaller communities. Their children got access to our schools. All after breaking into the country. I could call that being parasites. Would I be wrong?

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.

---

Do they pay taxes from illegally working or from some government benefits?

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

I only pointed out that they're respected conservatives because you're accusing them of being pro-immigration radicals. If the legal reasoning is wrong, it's up to you to explain why. That's what this should be about, not all of these personal attacks on the judges and their integrity.

So, we're waiting.

---

Conservatism isn't a guarantee of correctness. One of the many reasons illegal immigration has grown out of control is because of Conservatives supporting illegal immigration to the benefit of their paymasters.

Legal reasoning:
Supreme Court precedent (Fiallo v. Bell, Kleindienst v. Mandel, Arizona v. United States). The executive has broad discretion to remove those unlawfully present. It's not unlimited power, courts can review specific claims of individual harm (like due process violations in deportation hearings), but these judges can't block or dictate national enforcement policy.

When judges impose nationwide injunctions based on speculative or procedural claims they overstep their Article III authority and effectively seize policymaking power from the executive. That's not how separation of powers is supposed to work.

When judge Boasberg ruled against Trump deporting Tren de Aragua gang members under AEA, he claimed the government can't deport individuals under the AEA without providing them an opportunity to challenge their removal in court. Trump ignored him for good reason.
The AEA grants the executive branch broad authority to detain and deport nationals of hostile nations during times of war or invasion. The Trump administration argued that the Tren de Aragua's activities constituted an "irregular warfare" threat, justifying the use of the AEA.

You're not going to be able to make a coherent legal argument that their activities don't constitute an irregular warfare threat, even if it's unprecedented. This further reinforces the fact that you liberals really don't understand the dangers we're dealing with when it comes to illegal immigration…you've been used to to our country slapping these people on the wrist.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

I only pointed out that they're respected conservatives because you're accusing them of being pro-immigration radicals. If the legal reasoning is wrong, it's up to you to explain why. That's what this should be about, not all of these personal attacks on the judges and their integrity.

So, we're waiting.

---

Conservatism isn't a guarantee of correctness. One of the many reasons illegal immigration has grown out of control is because of Conservatives supporting illegal immigration to the benefit of their paymasters.

Legal reasoning:
Supreme Court precedent (Fiallo v. Bell, Kleindienst v. Mandel, Arizona v. United States). The executive has broad discretion to remove those unlawfully present. It's not unlimited power, courts can review specific claims of individual harm (like due process violations in deportation hearings), but these judges can't block or dictate national enforcement policy.

When judges impose nationwide injunctions based on speculative or procedural claims they overstep their Article III authority and effectively seize policymaking power from the executive. That's not how separation of powers is supposed to work.

When judge Boasberg ruled against Trump deporting Tren de Aragua gang members under AEA, he claimed the government can't deport individuals under the AEA without providing them an opportunity to challenge their removal in court. Trump ignored him for good reason.
The AEA grants the executive branch broad authority to detain and deport nationals of hostile nations during times of war or invasion. The Trump administration argued that the Tren de Aragua's activities constituted an "irregular warfare" threat, justifying the use of the AEA.

You're not going to be able to make a coherent legal argument that their activities don't constitute an irregular warfare threat, even if it's unprecedented. This further reinforces the fact that you liberals really don't understand the dangers we're dealing with when it comes to illegal immigration…you've been used to to our country slapping these people on the wrist.

---

And again it was a court in Texas, one of the least "liberal" jurisdictions in the country and the one Trump specifically sought out, that ruled against him on the AEA issue. The argument that this is a war or invasion within the meaning of the law is weak to non-existent.

No one is denying that the executive has broad powers. No one is trying to take enforcement policy out of the executive's hands. The courts are reviewing for due process violations, just as you say.

Don't panic. Don't throw away your rights because yet another liar wants to sell you yet another fake forever war (and understand, that's exactly what this will be). Uphold the Constitution and let it work.

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.

---

Trump didn't commit a crime, due process or not. Try again.

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.

---

Every illegal committed a crime. So that is 100%.

Do you think citizens approach 100%?

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Trump didn't commit a crime, due process or not. Try again.

---

He's committed plenty, but that's not what we're talking about.

GrowlTowel 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.

---

Every illegal committed a crime. So that is 100%.

Do you think citizens approach 100%?

---

Edited for maximum pedantry. Thanks so much.

And there it is. Sam hates Trump, and to smear him will tolerate any harm to innocent people.

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.

---

That's a great political narrative. I can't tell if you wrote it yourself, or simply paraphrased a rant from an MSNBC ideologue.

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Thanks for taking the time to post the information above. Looks like, in each instance, there is a hearing of some sort before the individual is deported.

---

Remember, the presiding "immigration judge" at a deportation hearing is NOT a judicial branch official. They are executive branch officials hired/fired by the DOJ. (I have a sister-in-law who is an IJ here in Texas.) The INA largely removed federal judiciary from immigration proceedings. The "due process" everyone is talking about is quite a bit different (and more limited). A pending deportee may have an attorney represent him/her at a deportation hearing, but is not afforded a public defender if they cannot afford their own attorney. They really don't have much to argue other than fact - that they are a citizen or that they do in fact have legal status. Virtually none of them can. They are caught dead-to-rights in a country without proper documentation.

The administration's argument is that the AEA circumvents any hearing before an immigration judge (since POTUS for whom they work has already made the ruling). There is certainly precedent for that. The only thing remarkable about what Trump has done with it is designating a criminal gang as a terrorist group. That is certainly an extension which invites critique, but they do have intelligence indicating that TDA in particular is an agent of a foreign power, and that seems unassailable. The murkier issue is classification of Mexican drug cartels as terror groups. There does exist reporting showing they have liaison with terror groups and foreign governments, and for sure they engage in terror in Mexico and here for the purpose of political intimidation. So it's not like the designation of them as terror groups is indefensible.

Judicial response to what Trump has done has actually lbeen quite muted, reflecting the limited range of options they have. It's not hard to understand discomfort that jurists across the spectrum might have for due process concerns, but inserting full due process rights into deportation hearings would not only create an unworkable deportation process. It would actually be an extreme case of judicial activism......the judiciary tossing out explicit structures of statute to expand its own jurisdiction over a co-equal branch of government. Hard to think the Roberts court is going to go that far.

Deporting criminal illegal aliens subject to the AEA is sound policy. Deporting them to a country willing to confine them (to prevent their return to USA illegally) is also sound policy. Now that they are in El Salvador, their well-being the responsibility of their own government (Venezuela), not ours.

The libtards want MS13 and Tren De Aragaua in our country. Did you see the dem leaders trying to crash the ICE facility yesterday?

whiterock 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.

---

That's a great political narrative. I can't tell if you wrote it yourself, or simply paraphrased a rant from an MSNBC ideologue.

---

I think you mean MSLSD.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And there it is. Sam hates Trump, and to smear him will tolerate any harm to innocent people.

---

That describes Leftists in general.

There is no rational, legitimate argument against mass deportation of all illegals as quickly as possible. Opposition to that is borderline treason as defined in the constitution.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Thanks for taking the time to post the information above. Looks like, in each instance, there is a hearing of some sort before the individual is deported.

---

Remember, the presiding "immigration judge" at a deportation hearing is NOT a judicial branch official. They are executive branch officials hired/fired by the DOJ. (I have a sister-in-law who is an IJ here in Texas.) The INA largely removed federal judiciary from immigration proceedings. The "due process" everyone is talking about is quite a bit different (and more limited). A pending deportee may have an attorney represent him/her at a deportation hearing, but is not afforded a public defender if they cannot afford their own attorney. They really don't have much to argue other than fact - that they are a citizen or that they do in fact have legal status. Virtually none of them can. They are caught dead-to-rights in a country without proper documentation.

The administration's argument is that the AEA circumvents any hearing before an immigration judge (since POTUS for whom they work has already made the ruling). There is certainly precedent for that. The only thing remarkable about what Trump has done with it is designating a criminal gang as a terrorist group. That is certainly an extension which invites critique, but they do have intelligence indicating that TDA in particular is an agent of a foreign power, and that seems unassailable. The murkier issue is classification of Mexican drug cartels as terror groups. There does exist reporting showing they have liaison with terror groups and foreign governments, and for sure they engage in terror in Mexico and here for the purpose of political intimidation. So it's not like the designation of them as terror groups is indefensible.

Judicial response to what Trump has done has actually lbeen quite muted, reflecting the limited range of options they have. It's not hard to understand discomfort that jurists across the spectrum might have for due process concerns, but inserting full due process rights into deportation hearings would not only create an unworkable deportation process. It would actually be an extreme case of judicial activism......the judiciary tossing out explicit structures of statute to expand its own jurisdiction over a co-equal branch of government. Hard to think the Roberts court is going to go that far.

Deporting criminal illegal aliens subject to the AEA is sound policy. Deporting them to a country willing to confine them (to prevent their return to USA illegally) is also sound policy. Now that they are in El Salvador, their well-being the responsibility of their own government (Venezuela), not ours.

---

Thanks again.
What I glean from you explanation is nobody is being put on a plane without a hearing to determine their immigration status. The police in Bum****, Kansas aren't arresting a person, pronouncing them as a member of MS13 or TdA and putting them a plane. There is a hearing in there somewhere wherein they are given a chance to establish their status as a legal alien.
For clarification, the applicability of the AEA to gangs still has to be adjudicated.

whiterock 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.

---

That's a great political narrative. I can't tell if you wrote it yourself, or simply paraphrased a rant from an MSNBC ideologue.

---

The information is right there in the federal court cases for anyone who cares to look.

Designation of TdA as an agent of a foreign government is far from unassailable; in fact it's dubious at best. And the AEA has nothing to do with terrorist groups or activities. It's about wars and invasions, which are a whole different thing.

It would indeed be a surprise if the Roberts Court granted full due process rights in deportation hearings, in part because no one has ever asked or argued for that. Full due process rights are a straw man.

Trump's Habeas Corpus Threat

No president, even Lincoln, has ever suspended the writ without Congress.
By William A. Galston
May 13, 2025

Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller last Friday told reporters that the Trump administration is "actively looking at" suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which ensures that a prisoner has the right to challenge his detention in court.

"Well, the Constitution is clear--and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land--that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion," Mr. Miller said. "A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not."

Translation: If the judicial branch impedes the administration's policy of arbitrary detentions, the executive branch will take the matter out of judges' hands.

Of all the measures the administration has proposed, this is the most dangerous. Habeas corpus is known as the "Great Writ" for good reason. For centuries, English monarchs jailed people without formally charging them, sometimes keeping them incarcerated indefinitely. The Assize of Clarendon, passed in 1166, set the foundation for a legal system that respects individual rights, and Parliament cemented it by enacting the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. The writ became the core protection of liberty against arbitrary government power.

The American colonists understood this history, as did the Constitution's framers. As practical men, they also understood that in times of dire emergency, the executive might feel compelled to act swiftly to protect the Constitution. This was their motivation for including a key sentence in Article I, Section 9: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Neither constitutional law nor history supports the proposition that President Trump can suspend the writ without congressional review and authorization. Mr. Miller can argue that Mr. Trump faces the kind of emergency that Lincoln did, but few legal scholars will endorse such a claim. Unlike in Lincoln's situation, moreover, Congress is already in session to consider the administration's request. And three federal judges have rejected the administration's assertion that illegal immigration amounts to an invasion.

It's unthinkable that Mr. Trump would be allowed to suspend habeas corpus, but that his administration is even considering it speaks volumes about his drive for unchecked power.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trumps-habeas-corpus-threat-due-process-law-policy-history-f3a58b21?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

A Mexican national illegally in the U.S. with multiple violent convictions was arrested in Spokane, Wash. on April 29 by Border Patrol agents. Liberal local media and left-wing activists are demanding his release. He was previously arrested for r—pe. pic.twitter.com/IxGKu1BOPo

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) May 12, 2025

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

BREAKING: Federal Judge Stephanie Haines rules that President Trump may continue deportations of gang members using the Alien Enemies Act.

“This Court's unflagging obligation is to apply the law as written. When the Court does so, it finds that the Proclamation now at issue… pic.twitter.com/3r9J4GaVZS

— America (@america) May 13, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

---

The South Africans are at genuine risk of being killed.

Garcia et al are only at risk of diabetes and over-exposure to Social Predators, aka Democrats.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

---

The South Africans are at genuine risk of being killed.

Garcia et al are only at risk of diabetes and over-exposure to Social Predators, aka Democrats.

---

Didn't stop the Democrats from suddenly becoming anti-immigrant ... it is almost like they were Cuban.

I wonder where are Sam's post expressing THREAT TO DEMOCRACY about these actions ... wonder if we can find any: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/title-42-block-nicaraguans-cubans-haitians-rcna64418

Can anyone find any articles expressing outrage about lack of "due process?"

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

---

The South Africans are at genuine risk of being killed.

Garcia et al are only at risk of diabetes and over-exposure to Social Predators, aka Democrats.

---

Didn't stop the Democrats from suddenly becoming anti-immigrant ... it is almost like they were Cuban.

I wonder where are Sam's post expressing THREAT TO DEMOCRACY about these actions ... wonder if we can find any: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/title-42-block-nicaraguans-cubans-haitians-rcna64418

Can anyone find any articles expressing outrage about lack of "due process?"

---

Title 42 was upheld by SCOTUS, thus the actions were legal. I realize this is difficult to understand.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

---

The South Africans are at genuine risk of being killed.

Garcia et al are only at risk of diabetes and over-exposure to Social Predators, aka Democrats.

---

Didn't stop the Democrats from suddenly becoming anti-immigrant ... it is almost like they were Cuban.

I wonder where are Sam's post expressing THREAT TO DEMOCRACY about these actions ... wonder if we can find any: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/title-42-block-nicaraguans-cubans-haitians-rcna64418

Can anyone find any articles expressing outrage about lack of "due process?"

---

Title 42 was upheld by SCOTUS, thus the actions were legal. I realize this is difficult to understand.

---

What due process did they receive? How do you know when SCOTUS is legitimate or illegitimate? I suspect it has something to do with whether it rules in favor of Trump or a Democrat.

The irony of course underscored the principle that immigration enforcement is under the purview of Executive authority, but let's not let principle cloud our tribal politics.

https://www.wisn.com/article/federal-grand-jury-indicts-milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan/64761613

gtownbear said:

---

https://www.wisn.com/article/federal-grand-jury-indicts-milwaukee-county-judge-hannah-dugan/64761613

---

Sam will be in mourning through the weekend.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

---

The South Africans are at genuine risk of being killed.

Garcia et al are only at risk of diabetes and over-exposure to Social Predators, aka Democrats.

---

Didn't stop the Democrats from suddenly becoming anti-immigrant ... it is almost like they were Cuban.

I wonder where are Sam's post expressing THREAT TO DEMOCRACY about these actions ... wonder if we can find any: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/title-42-block-nicaraguans-cubans-haitians-rcna64418

Can anyone find any articles expressing outrage about lack of "due process?"

---

Title 42 was upheld by SCOTUS, thus the actions were legal. I realize this is difficult to understand.

---

What due process did they receive? How do you know when SCOTUS is legitimate or illegitimate? I suspect it has something to do with whether it rules in favor of Trump or a Democrat.

The irony of course underscored the principle that immigration enforcement is under the purview of Executive authority, but let's not let principle cloud our tribal politics.

---

I often disagree with SCOTUS, but that doesn't make them illegitimate. If there was a due process issue with Title 42, you haven't specified it.

BREAKING:

This is all over the news in Mexico.

17 members of the Sinola Cartel (El Chapo’s family) supposedly turned themselves in to the FBI in San Diego. pic.twitter.com/5oq9mvHPOp

— Mila Joy (@MilaLovesJoe) May 14, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

---

The South Africans are at genuine risk of being killed.

Garcia et al are only at risk of diabetes and over-exposure to Social Predators, aka Democrats.

---

Didn't stop the Democrats from suddenly becoming anti-immigrant ... it is almost like they were Cuban.

I wonder where are Sam's post expressing THREAT TO DEMOCRACY about these actions ... wonder if we can find any: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/title-42-block-nicaraguans-cubans-haitians-rcna64418

Can anyone find any articles expressing outrage about lack of "due process?"

---

Title 42 was upheld by SCOTUS, thus the actions were legal. I realize this is difficult to understand.

---

What due process did they receive? How do you know when SCOTUS is legitimate or illegitimate? I suspect it has something to do with whether it rules in favor of Trump or a Democrat.

The irony of course underscored the principle that immigration enforcement is under the purview of Executive authority, but let's not let principle cloud our tribal politics.

---

I often disagree with SCOTUS, but that doesn't make them illegitimate. If there was a due process issue with Title 42, you haven't specified it.

---

There was not. In fact SCOTUS affirmed the Executive's authority to enforce immigration laws ... there was no due process issue because Biden was president ... just like when Obama enforced expedited deportations without the due process requirements demanded by the regressives today. For you guys on the left, reality and principle is always subservient to the D or R by the name.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wow, what a sad loss of credibility for Andy. A perfect example of how truth is being twisted in the rush to demonize immigrants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-without-country-ice-arrests-020700308.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANnp6QkpwAsq9mez-_WnxDxq6XHi32L-MIVoD9A3qI2wSp6RT4NRQ5U89F-EtQxzlmbcJBbp52ai8m2jCwX_Lc7ZaqxpgWyEWlGZMdOFEwfQQVYpJdOJbo6x3r335fFM6fV4U3NENiocOp8p8gbf9V3DMvw-WvZQmrBsGBq1ShyY

---

Stop lying. No one is 'rushing to demonize immigrants'.

The problem is a huge number of violent criminals brought here God knows why, and committing terrible crimes because people like you protect them from Justice.

---

You clearly have not been reading the reactions to the 39 South African refugee families.

That's the Orwellian game that is played ... opposition to drug cartels, human traffickers, and potential threats is couched as "anti-immigrant" as if your Indian buddy is suddenly going to get deported and sent to Honduras. We live in an unserious nation.

---

The South Africans are at genuine risk of being killed.

Garcia et al are only at risk of diabetes and over-exposure to Social Predators, aka Democrats.

---

Didn't stop the Democrats from suddenly becoming anti-immigrant ... it is almost like they were Cuban.

I wonder where are Sam's post expressing THREAT TO DEMOCRACY about these actions ... wonder if we can find any: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/title-42-block-nicaraguans-cubans-haitians-rcna64418

Can anyone find any articles expressing outrage about lack of "due process?"

---

Title 42 was upheld by SCOTUS, thus the actions were legal. I realize this is difficult to understand.

---

What due process did they receive? How do you know when SCOTUS is legitimate or illegitimate? I suspect it has something to do with whether it rules in favor of Trump or a Democrat.

The irony of course underscored the principle that immigration enforcement is under the purview of Executive authority, but let's not let principle cloud our tribal politics.

---

I often disagree with SCOTUS, but that doesn't make them illegitimate. If there was a due process issue with Title 42, you haven't specified it.

---

There was not. In fact SCOTUS affirmed the Executive's authority to enforce immigration laws ... there was no due process issue because Biden was president ... just like when Obama enforced expedited deportations without the due process requirements demanded by the regressives today. For you guys on the left, reality and principle is always subservient to the D or R by the name.

---

No one is questioning the executive's authority to enforce immigration law, including expedited removal. Trump's violations of the law have been alleged in detail. If you think Obama violated the law in a similar way, feel free to share. So far you're not telling me anything.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Designation of TdA as an agent of a foreign government is far from unassailable; in fact it's dubious at best. And the AEA has nothing to do with terrorist groups or activities. It's about wars and invasions, which are a whole different thing.

It would indeed be a surprise if the Roberts Court granted full due process rights in deportation hearings, in part because no one has ever asked or argued for that. Full due process rights are a straw man.

---

You are conveniently ignoring substantial evidence backed by intelligence that foreign adversaries are pursuing unconventional warfare strategies via proxies crossing our borders illegally.

Those subject to AEA cannot be entitled to anything more than the same deportation hearing every other illegal has. Many of those deported indeed have already issued removal orders, including the poster child now in an El Salvadoran prison.

It's not hard to have an immigration judge at door of the plane handing the TDA, MS-13, et al deportation orders. How do you know we haven't done that? Why must it be an immigration judge doing the determinations? The IJ is in fact an executive branch official. Can't the AG appoint others to do the AEA determinations, or even do it herself?

You can scream due process all you want, but facts are facts. Removal proceedings are not criminal prosecutions. Ergo, they do not involve the same due process rights afforded to criminal defendants. We don't want to prosecute illegal aliens. We want to send them home. they have no right to be here whatsoever.