Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
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.
Those subject under the AEA can't be entitled to anything less than those subject under the INA. They can be entitled to more, for example reasonable notice and time to depart voluntarily.
Again, no one is saying due process always looks the same. Only that it must always be respected.
actually, not. INA empowers POTUS to declare entire classes of aliens inadmissable and order their deportation. So, Trump could have simply ordered all Venezuelan citizens deported. Instead, he just focused on gang members. For not casting the wider net, his critics call him a threat to democracy.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/31/jimmy-carters-iranian-student-deportation-provides-precedent-modern/
Deportation is an administrative process wholly contained within the executive branch. So, SCOTUS wants a deportation hearing? Fine. Sit an Immigration Judge at a desk out on the tarmac and hand each gang member a deportation order as they board the plane. That is EXACTLY what I would do if I were POTUS tomorrow. It'll take a few weeks for the left to respond to that in the courts. In the meantime, thousands more transnational gang members will be gone.
You cannot arbitrarily deport all people of a certain nationality.
Correct. I cannot do such. Thankfully, a POTUS can.
Carter only deported a few thousand nonimmigrant Iranians who couldn't document their status.
LOL. That is EXACTLY what Trump is doing with the gangs.
Your courtroom-on-the-tarmac scheme would violate the law in any number of ways, including denial of the right to an impartial judge.
Flatly incorrect. Deportation hearings occur before immigration judges, who are Executive Branch officials because the Immigration & Naturalization Act explicitly removes jurisdiction for removal proceedings from the Judicial Branch. WHERE that immigration judge sits is not material. In fact, most immigration hearings today are done via teleconference.....judges can & do hold court from their homes.
As you apparently realize, it would indeed be subject to review from outside the executive branch.
Only to determine if the proceeding complied with the INA, not the determination of deportability itself.
The judiciary has already ruled against your position, 9-0 = federal courts have an extraordinarily limited role in deportation proceedings, foreign affairs, etc..... That's why they issued such soft language in the demand to "facilitate" release. It was a suggestion, not an order. They did not question Abrego's deportability, only the error in where he was sent.
The broader question at hand with Trump's use of the AEA is whether or not that statute obviates advance notice for a deportation hearing. If it does not, then the AEA is meaningless. I would expect a Roberts court to dodge that question in its final ruling.
You are engaging in judicial activism that SCOTUS has already rejected, numerous times. Check out Bourfara v. Mayorkas, for example, which refused to curtail the Executive Branch's sweeping powers to determine deportability of aliens. Justice Brown wrote the opinion. You might also review relevant statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1252https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227#a_2_A_iiPOTUS has almost unlimited discretion to determine deportability. One need not be convicted of a crime to be deported........ A protective order will do it. Getting arrested will do it. Failure to fill out forms in a timely fashion will do it. Events half a globe away could do it. No alien has a right to be here. None.
