patrick.net

@AmerikanKulak I think I understand your perspective on some of your points.

Let me try to see if we have consensus on a few things... Tell me if you agree with this:

Immigration and deportation is an administrative process. Immigration courts, immigration judges, immigration hearings, etc.. are all part of the administrative process, and are NOT carried out by the judicial branch. They are part of the DOJ and report to the executive branch. They have their own administrative process to follow, which does not require federal (judicial branch) judges. The federal courts and SCOTUS accept that proper administrative procedure constitutes due process, as long as it is followed. Federal courts will not take an appeal based solely on the premise that the immigrant wanted a judicial branch judge to review the case instead of an immigration judge or administrative proceeding.

Federal courts will get involved if there are constitutional or legal questions such as:
-Is the law being enforced constitutional?
-Are the administrative procedures legal and constitutional, sufficient to ensure due process?
-Were the procedures followed in the case in question?

If the answer to all of those questions is 'yes' then the federal courts won't re-litigate the case. They will accept the outcome of the administrative procedure. If the answer to any of them is 'no', the federal courts will review the case and have authority to intervene.

WookieMan says

Hawk has been a member since 2011, but comes out of the woodwork when Trump starts doing stuff

I come out of the woodwork when I see a topic of interest to me where I think the prevailing attitude on patnet is on the wrong side. I feel motivated to be the contrarian voice when I see people getting a false sense of consensus simply because they are conversing with a like-minded subset of the population in an echo chamber.

Otherwise, I just come here to browse the funny pictures.

WookieMan says

People can think this has turned into a right leaning site.

DeficitHawk says

I feel motivated to be the contrarian voice when I see people getting a false sense of consensus simply because they are conversing with a like-minded subset of the population in an echo chamber.

You have to prove the false sense of consensus. You haven't done that. Binging up one lower case is not consensus at all.

Illegal is illegal. I get due process because I'm a citizen. Illegals don't because they aren't within the realm of the constitution regardless of a lower courts judgement. You gotta get past that.

Why keep arguing? The goal isn't to be persuaded by logic, reason, fact or law. It is to keep hammering the propaganda hoping for a harvest of fools.

.Yipee Ki-Yay!

https://t.me/tribunalsandexecutions/513120

https://rumble.com/v6t6imp-newark-mayor-ras-baraka-arrested-for-trying-to-break-into-illegal-alien-det.html

https://x.com/Slatzism/status/1919501084571455840

Importing men from backwards, misogynistic cultures - the left should, in theory, oppose this.

Importing people hyper-religious conservative countries - the left should, in theory, oppose this.

Importing people who have no respect for the environment or animals - the left should, in theory, oppose this.

The left has a stronger, more logically consistent case against immigration than the right does. That is precisely why being anti-immigration used to be a firmly leftist position.

But today, it will get you excommunicated from any leftist circle. And why? Because George Soros came along in the 80s and brutally raped every single leftist org until they were buckbroken into the perfect, unwitting stewards of global capital.

Now we are stuck listening to shitlibs talk about why it's more important to be “kind” to brown people than it is to stop little girls from getting groomed by Pakistanis.

And this goes back to the stupid cookie drawing. The rich guy with the stack of cookies would NEVER tell you to hate the foreigner.

He’d try to convince you the foreigner is a net benefit to your society. That he brings good food and culture and pizzazz.

And when that stopped working on you, he’d tell you the foreigner is better than you, and that more foreigners are needed because you’re too lazy and stupid to accept a crumb instead of a whole cookie.

Put him/her/zer on ignore.

DeficitHawk says

Immigration and deportation is an administrative process. Immigration courts, immigration judges, immigration hearings, etc.. are all part of the administrative process, and are NOT carried out by the judicial branch. They are part of the DOJ and report to the executive branch. They have their own administrative process to follow, which does not require federal (judicial branch) judges. The federal courts and SCOTUS accept that proper administrative procedure constitutes due process, as long as it is followed. Federal courts will not take an appeal based solely on the premise that the immigrant wanted a judicial branch judge to review the case instead of an immigration judge or administrative proceeding.

Partially.

1. Per the Constitution Immigration is wholly the domain of the elected Legislature. Not just who may come to the US, not just illegal, but also resident aliens, is wholly and solely up to the Political Branches, as multiple SCOTUS rulings have confirmed.
1a. There are also National Defense/Security of the Republic and Foreign Policy reasons cited by SCOTUS to give the Executive and Congress full powers over deportation.
1b. SCOTUS has even allowed denaturalization of naturalized citizens.
1c. SCOTUS has accepted that immigration OFFICERS and OFFICIALS, such as ICE, not only DOJ judges or administrative courts, can deport persons without a full judicial hearing.
1d. SCOTUS has ruled ceaselessly without exception that they never interfere with Foreign Policy reserved to other branches unless serious conflicts with other laws are present. And then, it is only for them to untangle the conflict, not to rule against one Policy or another
2. Congress has determined that membership in ideological organizations such as Anarchist, Communist, or Organized Crime, is an of itself a valid reason for deportation. And the status of such membership can be determined solely and wholly by Immigration Officials and the Executive Branch without a US Federal Judge having a full legal hearing.
2b. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952) explicitly upheld the Smith Act, and determined that the status of aliens, legal or illegal, the 5th Amendment "Due Process" does not require a full judicial hearing unless some other right has been violated, such as allegations of Torture under the No Cruel or Unusual Punishments rubric.
2c. Again, Due Process for Deporting aliens does not require a full legal hearing by a US Judge.
2d. That includes if it happened more than 100 miles from a border crossing.
3. The ACLU and various Pro-Mass Migration Groups are trying to work around the established SCOTUS standard by running a propaganda and judicial activist campaign, misleading the Public, pressuring leadership, and trying to encourage lower Federal Judges to require hearings that was explicitly rejected by the SCOTUS is multiple rulings

WookieMan says

Illegal is illegal. I get due process because I'm a citizen. Illegals don't because they aren't within the realm of the constitution regardless of a lower courts judgement. You gotta get past that.

And because the Constitution places immigration laws and enforcement, along with foreign policy, wholly and solely under Congress and the President. The Judiciary has no powers in those areas. SCOTUS has decided many times that only the commands of the executive following the laws of the legislature are required to deport, not a full legal hearing into the merits of each individual ordered deported. This is well settled law, in fact, SCOTUS has been firm on this since the time of President Addams.

The left-wing and globalists are trying to use Judicial Activism to create right for a full hearing for every single deportee, and more broadly create the FALSE CONCEPTION that the Judiciary is some FINAL REFEREE in any and all matters regardless of domain. From Environment to Immigration to National Defense. Many Leftists honestly believe that Ana Reyes had the right to instruct the Executive on what military readiness includes and excludes.

If you are a member of Tren de Agua, you leave, and that is 100% up to DHS/ICE officials, not judges. There is nothing for a judge to determine, since the Foreign Policy and Immigration powers are outside the scope of the Judiciary entirely. Only if, say, a deportee was beaten senseless and kept in a cell for months would the court have the right to hear the case at all

WookieMan says

Illegal is illegal. I get due process because I'm a citizen. Illegals don't because they aren't within the realm of the constitution regardless of a lower courts judgement. You gotta get past that.

This statement is still wrong. It was wrong the last 99 times you said it, and its still wrong on the 100th. I have cited the cases that established it (in the other Maryland Man thread). You have not even tried to establish a basis in law or fact for this statement... Because there is none. You have to stop repeating a lie.

Illegal immigrants are entitled due process, with the exception of 'arriving' immigrants, who are not.

I support Trump’s efforts to rid America of all immigrant invaders.

AmericanKulak says

If you are a member of Tren de Agua, you leave, and that is 100% up to DHS/ICE officials, not judges

Congress can absolutely pass laws to ban groups of people from immigration. Executive branch can absolutely act in accordance with those laws. Still, administrative process must exist which allows for due process, and the judicial branch CAN intervene if due process is not maintained. Administrative process will be accepted as due process, but only if it is followed. The executive does NOT have a blank check authority to deport anyone they want without due process!

You keep citing the SCOTUS case of Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952). If the judiciary had no jurisdiction to ensure due process was maintained, why did they spend 2 of 3 sections of their opinion analyzing whether due process had been maintained?

In the maryland man case, why do you think SCOTUS ordered the administration to facilitate the return of 'maryland man'?

The executive branch actions on immigration ARE subject to judicial review by the judicial branch if proper procedures to enable due process are not being followed, or if the laws they are enforcing are not constitutional.

If you are saying the executive branch has final authority to deport whomever they choose and is not subject to judicial review on the basis of due process, I disagree, and so does SCOTUS, in the very case you are citing among others.

Legal Sesame Street for the Cloward Piven legal wannabes.

https://t.me/SGTnewsNetwork/92959

Immigration Nationality aCt pdf

DeficitHawk says

Still, administrative process must exist which allows for due process, and the judicial branch CAN intervene if due process is not maintained

Okay, I'm done. SCOTUS has ruled specifically that the decision of executive officials is due process enough, given the total power granted to Executives and Congress to manage foreign relations and immigration and their need for flexibility and that being in the US is a privilege, and revoking that privilege does not require due process in front of a judge. I believe I even quoted the exact remarks above.

Because deportation is a wholly political policy matter, and the Constitution is explicit in this, there is nothing for a judge to rule on.

We're not normalizing giving judges the right to second guess Congress and the Executive in foreign affairs and immigraton.

The Founding Fathers based the US Constitution and Bill of Rights on being the antithesis of what they endured under the British monarchy and based on historic lessons learned from authoritarian governments of Europe.

So its not just criminal in nature, but also administrative such as protection of an individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (which includes ownership of private property).

There should be already processes or regulations to comply with when conducting deportations of those who have been given some level of status by the US federal government.

Or there are no clear cut rules and procedures to follow, so the executive branch has a lot of flexibility with regards to deportations ?

But as we discussed, how do you redress the anarcho-tyranny AND bad faith effects of the Birdbrain Biden administration which granted status without any fair and reasonable vetting of criminal immigrants such as those engaged in gang activities ?

Even if you do have emergency hearings in a 24/7 immigration court, you are likely dealing with a Soros-style immigration judge.
.

So if someone from Venezuela is on temporary protected status (TPS) because they sought asylum from political persecution, what happens if that person is arrested in a night club for being associated with gang activity ?

Does the regulations for TPS state they have to be found guilty in a criminal court to be deported ?

And can they still maintain TPS while they appeal the conviction ?

AmericanKulak says

Okay, I'm done. SCOTUS has ruled specifically that the decision of executive officials is due process enough, given the total power granted to Executives

This is not right. I dont agree. You are confusing the treatment of 'arriving'/'entrant' immigrants with the rights of people already here. They are not the same.

I agree that administrative procedure can satisfy due process, but the executive/congress does NOT have the authority to adopt procedures that abandon due process for immigrants already here. (They can limit due process for the 'Denial of entry on arrival' scenario.)

I've cited the supreme court cases, I'll do it one last time:
Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953):

"It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101 (1903); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 49-50 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 344 U. S. 598 (1953). But an alien on the threshold of initial entry stands on a different footing: "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned."

Its clearly summarized here, with the prior cases referenced. Illegal aliens, once established inside of the US are entitled due process and the executive may not deprive them of it. Arriving immigrants are different, and may be excluded without meeting the standard of due process.

Your interpretation that the executive has final say, can act without the standards of due process, and is not subject to judicial review for immigrants already here does NOT fit with the straight reading of the SCOTUS decision above.

I don't know why you wont acknowledge that.

Ceffer says

He is wrong. He should read the case I've cited above.

AD says

So if someone from Venezuela is on temporary protected status (TPS) because they sought asylum from political persecution, what happens if that person is arrested in a night club for being associated with gang activity ?

From my reading on these topics, it is pretty clear congress has broad authority to set exclusion standards for classes of immigrants. They can order the removal of people who meet certain standards of gang affiliation, or certain standards of criminal history. That is totally within the power of congress to do, and the executive branch to enforce.

The deportation proceedings may be administrative and conducted by Executive branch personnel, but they still need to meet the standard of due process, and properly evaluate whether the person falls into the exclusion category as well as any other applicable laws. Once they make a determination, they can order and act on deportation.

These cases will only be challenged in federal court if the proceedings fail to meet the due process standard, or if the law itself is unconstitutional.

Even we lefty's (me at least) are not trying to stop the government from enforcing immigration laws, we just don't like to see people justify abandoning due process when due process is entitled. Stephen Millers quote above is clearly trying to normalize executive actions without due process. This should be rejected. The fact that many pat-netters are actively defending this sort of mindset is shameful.

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales.

Ceffer says

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales.

We should end asylum period.

AD says

because they sought asylum from political persecution

For asylum cases, it is important to recognize that congress has passed laws on when people should be given asylum. Asylum is not the result of 'activist judges and birdbrain Biden'... it is the law as passed by congress. If congress also wants to exclude certain categories of people, then congress should make clear what the law is when a person qualifies for both exclusion and asylum at the same time.. which one takes precedence? Congress has the authority to declare the answer to this question.

There is a UN convention on asylum that USA are signatories to... so however the laws get written, they need to comply with that (assuming we don't withdraw from the UN conventions). I think that there is probably latitude for congress to make laws excluding the classes of criminals they want to without running afoul of the UN conventions.

Ceffer says

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales

Congress can make whatever laws they want regarding asylum. There is UN convention on it, so if we wish to remain signatories to the UN conventions, our laws would need to comply with the UN conventions. Within that constraint, congress can make whatever permissive or restrictive laws they want. And we could also chose to withdraw from the UN conventions and then make whatever laws they want unbounded by the UN.

Whatever laws congress passes... that's the laws we should be following. Not just "do whatever Steven Miller wants to do today".

Next, remove 'Habeus Dickus' for trannies.

To satisfy those who are harping about illegals' "due process", fill a stadium with the illegals, bring in a judge and he can read the deportation orders over the PA system.

FUCK them ALL, deport them ALL.

clambo says

To satisfy those who are harping about illegals' "due process",

You are wrong to advocate violating our laws and constitution. I can not agree with you.

You are wrong to advocate the invasion of our country, subversion of the electoral process through the mass of illegal bodies for redistricting and illegal voting, the immense tax burden illegals impose, the competition for housing which prevents Americans from forming families, and the crushing effect on wages for the lower classes of US citizens.

Ceffer says

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales.

This is what the Lefties like DeficitHawk and RWSGFY want exploited with a Democrat administration or at least Soros-style immigration judges.

So what do you do when the Birdbrain Biden administration acted in bad faith ? You have to take extreme measures to deport immigrants who should have never been granted status or any protections within the USA. They should have remained in Mexico.

But go back to the debates in 2020 when Birdbrain Biden said he's going to open the border and let them all in who were being held in Mexico.

The "mean Trump tweets" suburban female voter such as in Atlanta voted for Birdbrain Biden regardless of this, or Biden's reckless fiscal and foreign policies.

.

Patrick says

You are wrong to advocate the invasion of our country, subversion of the electoral process through the mass of illegal bodies for redistricting and illegal voting, the immense tax burden illegals impose, the competition for housing which prevents Americans from forming families, and the crushing effect on wages for the lower classes of US citizens.

Yes, how much of the population in California that is counted by the Census Bureau is illegal immigrants ? California is nearly all Democrat as far as Congressional representatives.

Sounds like DeficitHawk is from the same sleeper cell of “Farmer Lost”!
Backed by Jihadi funding and supporting traitors.

https://legitgov.org/index.php/2025/05/09/californias-estimated-10b-deficit-matches-precisely-the-cost-of-illegal-immigrant-healthcare/

California’s estimated $10B deficit matches ‘precisely’ the cost of illegal immigrant healthcare

DeficitHawkBot has to be on the side of an AI mining operation. I can't see any rational reason to continue this conversation other than 1) the soros/satanist/fecal impaction enjoys antagonizing PatNet, or 2) since @Patrick has banned robots, the only way "they" can scrape content about "alt-right" (as DeficitHawkBot has previously revealed) is to put a human-like operator in place to copy paste stimulus and response.

The AI feeder/scraper agents are becoming quite clever. Kudos @Patrick - "they" are so desperate they're seeking out niche independent blogs to feed into their LLM and finally get the missing ingredient to defeat independent thought.

Ceffer says

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud.

Yes, this is another harmful result of the Biden flood of criminal aliens.

From lawyer Jeff Childers:

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/mrna-mayhem-saturday-may-10-2025

Proving once again that C&C readers are far ahead of the media’s curve, yesterday, the New York Times ran a story headlined, “Trump Officials Consider Suspending Habeas Corpus for Detained Migrants.” “The Constitution is clear,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller told reporters outside the White House. The writ of habeas corpus “could be suspended in time of invasion.” Miller was completely correct.

The “somebody said something” story, if you can call it that, was a steaming heap of journalistic excrement. For one example, after repeatedly referring to the writ of habeas corpus as a “right” until readers got the message, it finally got around to quoting the Constitution, which expressly refers to the writ as a “privilege.” Only then did the Times admit circumspectly that it is “a right generally guaranteed.”

Sadly, Times readers are the least well-educated members of our society. They need some kind of remedial program.

A quick refresher for our Portland readers (who, at least, surpass New York Times subscribers in educational attainment). “Habeas corpus” is Old Latin for “show the body.” It’s the legal system’s emergency brake for the government to produce an arrestee in court and justify their imprisonment. It forces officials to either put up (with evidence) or shut up (and release the person), putting the kibosh on secret or indefinite detentions. When courts issue the writ, they’re saying: “Bring the prisoner here, now, and prove you have the right to hold them or else let them go.”

Next, after stating as a fact that the writ may only be suspended by Congress, and not the President, the Times then reported that the four times in American history it was suspended was by presidents. It quoted the infamous story of Lincoln’s suspension, oddly, without mentioning his equally infamous defiance of the Supreme Court’s chief judge. All the Times recalled about that remarkable story was this passive-voice chestnut: “his move was challenged.”

Instead, the Times focused on the fact that Congress eventually authorized Lincoln’s suspension retroactively— two years after the fact.

That retroactive approval was the only time —of the four times— that Congress got involved. So the Times’ argument was at best incomplete, and ignored the strong precedent available to President Trump.

That isn’t to say the article didn’t raise some talking points. It mentioned that three federal judges so far have challenged the Administration’s invocation of an “invasion,” a type of reflexive judicial invasion of the political sphere that would have been much more welcome during the pandemic, when Biden and his progressive allies closed churches and mandated experimental medical treatments, or during the 2020 election debacle, back when judges deferred en masse to “political questions.” But set judicial restraint aside, since the courts have also.




But everything we need to know about the Gray Lady’s journalistic merits was betrayed by the fact that the story quoted zero experts supporting Trump’s position or even allowing it has some historical merit. So much for balance.

I hesitate to predict whether Trump will actually suspend the writ. The hanging threat of suspending it might be a better tool than its use in practice. But if he does suspend the writ, it will only be because the courts —which never interfered with Obama’s or Clinton’s mass deportation schemes— have made it impossible to remove large groups of foreign nationals without time-consuming individual due process.

Despite the Times’ best efforts to confuse everybody and make it impossible to have an intelligent debate, there is a good argument about due process in the context of mass deportation. My legal perspective is that it will come down to the simple question of whether the U.S. is “under invasion” or not. If millions of illegal entries of foreign nationals is an invasion, even a non-traditional one, then the Constitution expressly allows due process to be temporarily suspended.

During the Constitutional Debates, founder James Madison argued that “in cases of imminent danger the general government ought to be empowered to defend the whole Union.” And in Federalist No. 43, Madison explicitly included “insurrections” and even “domestic violence” as threats akin to foreign invasions— and said the federal government must intervene.

That particular type of key question —whether or not something that looks like an invasion is in fact a “real” invasion— has never been decided by courts, which have always deferred to the political branches, especially in times of emergency. A ruling on the constitutional validity of Trump’s “invasion” declaration would push the courts into shaky new legal ground —a real example of overreaching— a nuance the Times studiously ignored.

stereotomy says

The AI feeder/scraper agents are becoming quite clever. Kudos Patrick - "they" are so desperate they're seeking out niche independent blogs to feed into their LLM and finally get the missing ingredient to defeat independent thought.

You have some interesting ideas about me.

I have enjoyed this site for a long time, though I only occasionally participate on it. It was once about real estate during the real estate collapse, and at that time I thought the commentary was spot on. My user name is DeficitHawk because I first registered to participate in a discussion on budget policy, and I was advocating for closing the deficit. For a few years, I thought patrick did a good job moderating a respectful site where different opinions could be expressed. Since then, maybe for the past 7-8 years, the site has just deteriorated into a right wing echo chamber that is hostile to anyone who doesn't share the prevailing point of view.

I try to participate. I dont call names. I dont throw insults. But I do share an alternative point of view that the echo chamber rejects. I am constantly accused of being a bot, or an agent of some evil power. I am called a liar, disingenuous, a jihadi, a traitor, and a variety of other characterizations.

You dont have to agree with me, but you really need to recognize that your behavior in this echo chamber is the reason no one like me wants to participate. Its the reason you have an echo chamber instead of a robust, balanced discussion of multiple viewpoints.

So go ahead and dismiss me as an agent/bot or whatever you care to call me. But dont for a second believe you are open to discussions with people of different point of view. And dont for a second believe any 'consensus' you find here represents a consensus of Americans at large. You have pushed out everyone who doesnt agree with you already, and now you just discuss your ideas among people who already agree.

AD says

This is what the Lefties like DeficitHawk and RWSGFY want exploited with a Democrat administration

I'm glad you highlighted RWSGFY.... I respect him... I have watched for 3 years as he has been the only rational voice on the Ukraine topic, serving as a punching bag for many people who just echo Russia Channel One points of view.

AmericanKulak, while he and I dont agree on this topic, at least was willing to put some effort into the discussion.. referencing laws and rulings and making a genuine effort to use some rationale for his position. I learned something from him. I respect him too.

There are a few others who have genuinely tried to discuss these topics with an open mind, at least a little bit.

The rest of you, who just throw out garbage with no justification... Mindlessly parroting memes and nonsense... Lazy insults and rage baiting... I do not respect your methods and you do nothing to advance this conversation or help find consensus.

If you want this to be an site where people can discuss opposing viewpoints, then make it be one through the example you set.

AD says

There should be already processes or regulations to comply with when conducting deportations of those who have been given some level of status by the US federal government.

There are. This is an attempt by the Left to put Judicial Activists into the process.

DeficitHawk says

This is not right. I dont agree. You are confusing the treatment of 'arriving'/'entrant' immigrants with the rights of people already here. They are not the same.

For the 5th time, I am not. You are refusing to look at the sourced material. SCOTUS has upheld Legal Immigrants being deported wholly by Immigration Officials (not Federal Judges) based on conditions set by Congress.

There is no situation a Federal Judge should be reviewing a deportation UNLESS there is another violation (ie Cruel and Unusual Punishment).

Federal Judges have no (0%, none, bupkes, nada, zilch) authority to second guess Constitutionally 100% granted to Congress and Executive the powers over foreign relations (previously interpreted by the highest courts to include the status of Aliens, illegal OR legal) and immigration. Harisiades majority opinion explicitly denies the normal 'due process' in the case of alien deportation to involve Judges interfering with the desire of the Electorate to remove Communists, Criminal Gang members, etc.

Why? Because the Courts have no authority over foreign policy or immigration, it is explicitly only granted to Congress and the Executive - the elected, Political Branches.

@DeficitHawk, give me an instance why a Federal Judge could cancel a deportation. Assuming there's a hearing and the alien is standing in the courtroom.

Keeping in mind Congress has the Constitutional right make a law stating aliens who like Teletubbies are undesirable.

Thanks.

AmericanKulak says

DeficitHawk, give me an instance why a Federal Judge could cancel a deportation. Assuming there's a hearing and the alien is standing in the courtroom.

Keeping in mind Congress has the Constitutional right make a law stating aliens who like Teletubbies are undesirable

The federal judge can intervene in two scenarios as I understand:
1) The law itself violates the constitution.
2) The administrative procedures used to categorize people for deportation fail to meet the due process standard.

The SCOTUS case you referenced above shows that the court considered both of these issues.... Section 1 of the opinion found that the law does not violate the constitution, and sections 2/3 found that the administrative procedures used did not violate due process. So they upheld the deportation orders.

IF they had found that the law was unconstitutional, or that the procedure did not meet due process, they would have overturned the deportation orders.