patrick.net

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.

DeficitHawk says

1) The law itself violates the constitution.

Impossible. The Constitution gives total power over immigration and foreign policy to the Congress and Executive. Only "Thwough them to the gwound, very woughly, Centuwion, before deporting them" law could be unconstitutional. But while the "Very Woughly" part could be overturned, whatever standard Brian violated and was being deported on would still stand.

Again, judges have no power to rule whatever grounds a deportee is being deported on unconstitutional.

It could be because Congress decides that being a DeviantArt account holder is undesirable. Or membership in the LadyGaga fanclub.

So let me ask again, what ruling could a Judge possibly give reversing under what qualifications the deportation is being ordered?

DeficitHawk says

2) The administrative procedures used to categorize people for deportation fail to meet the due process standard.

Again, see Harisiades. The standard for deportation is lower and this has been upheld repeatedly.
DeficitHawk says

sections 2/3 found that the administrative procedures used did not violate due process.

And that opinion found the judgement of executive immigration officials enforcing a Congressional law was enough due process.

Of course, it's more simple than that. The reason the Dems want Full Due Process is simply to gainsay the Immigration officials

"Well, he's got MS-13 affiliated markings on his hands, was previously convicted for owning fully auto firearms without a Class 3 license..."

"Insufficient, he stays!" - Judge Butterfly Battleaxe-Lunarwoman, Obama Appointee

"But he also has an 'I love MS13 tattoo on his left bicep repeated in English, Spanish, Catalan, Greek, Aztec, and Latin"

"I said, INSUFFICIENT!"

"And here is 50 hours of surveillance video of him hanging out in a El Presidente Supermarket parking lot with MS-13 gang members over the past 6 months, several of whom were convic----"

"SILENCE! HE STAYS! Case Closed! You will be charged with contempt if you speak again, ICE Official! "

"And here he is pledging loyalty to Capitan Nauhautl of the Feathered Serpent Mafia on a phone call we intercepted with a warr----"

"Bailiff, Take ICE Official to jail this Friday Night. You are charged with contempt! You can be bailed out Monday Morning"

AmericanKulak says

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.

Oh I agree with you on this, I dont think we are arguing about that. Immigration proceedings are administrative unless appealed to the federal courts. Immigration "judges" are not really judges in that they are not part of the judicial branch. They are appointed officials of the executive branch. "Immigration Judge"... "Presiding Official"... whatever you want to call them. Its all administrative procedure, and they can carry out deportation proceedings without any federal judge. I agree with this.

But administrative procedures still needs to meet the standard of due process. Key elements to that include:
1) The notification that the person needs to participate in the proceeding
2) The opportunity to present evidence and be heard. "Hearing".. "Tribunal"... "Proceeding" whatever you call it.
3) An impartial decision maker who hears the evidence. "Judge", "Presiding official", whatever you call it.
4) A transcript or record of the proceeding
etc...

This kind of stuff is all laid out in detail in the "Administrative Proceedings Act", which sets the standards for how administrative procedures should be run.

If the proceedings don't meet the standard of due process, then the federal courts should intervene to correct it. All administrative procedures in the federal government have these requirements, and all are subject to judicial review if they violate due process rights. Not just immigration.

Im not saying that all immigration proceedings need to be in a federal courtroom. Thats not the case. But they DO need to meet the standard of due process.

DeficitHawk says

They are appointed officials of the executive branch. "Immigration Judge"... "Presiding Official"... whatever you want to call them.

No. SCOTUS already said "Immigration Official" not "Federal Judge" is sufficient. The two are NOT the same.

Immigration officials are government employees, typically law enforcement, who enforce immigration laws and policies. They work for agencies like the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and their duties include screening individuals at borders, assessing visa applications, and assisting with deportation proceedings.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A8+section%3A1101+edition%3Aprelim%29#:~:text=(18)%20The%20term%20%22immigration,any%20section%20of%20this%20title.

(18) The term “immigration officer” means any employee or class of employees of the Service or of the United States designated by the Attorney General, individually or by regulation, to perform the functions of an immigration officer specified by this chapter or any section of this title.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-717612480-1201680039&term_occur=8&term_src=

A person employed by the Executive is not a member of the Judiciary.

Boasberg is NOT an employee of ICE, USCIS, the State Department, etc.

"Waaah, where is the Judiciary to stop this?!" - NYT, NPR, MSNBC

AmericanKulak says

No. SCOTUS already said "Immigration Official" not "Federal Judge" is sufficient. The two are NOT the same.

'Immigration judge' = 'Immigration official'. An "Immigration judge" is not a federal judge and is not part of the judicial branch at all. An "immigration judge" is an appointed officer of the executive branch, who oversees administrative immigration proceedings.

They are called judges because of the role they play in immigration hearings... but they are NOT part of the judicial branch of the government. they are not 'real' judges. They are officials of the executive branch, appointed to oversee immigration proceedings.

Thats not to discredit immigration judges by saying they are not 'real' judges... but they are not part of the judiciary. They are part of the administrative procedure laid out by the executive branch. A hearing before an immigration judge does not constitute 'Judicial review'.... its just administrative procedure. An immigration judge IS an immigration official, not a federal judge.

"Judicial review" is when a judicial branch judge gets involved. That only happens if there is an appeal.

AmericanKulak says

DeficitHawk says
'Immigration judge' = 'Immigration official'.

No.

OK help me understand where our understandings diverge.

Do you agree that an "Immigration judge" is an official of the executive branch, appointed by the executive to oversee immigration proceedings, and that they are NOT a federal judge or a member of the Judiciary (they are NOT part of Article III of the constitution)?

DeficitHawk says

OK help me understand where our understandings diverge.

So, you admit that Executive appointed officials make the primary determination in deportation cases and that is considered enough due process except in extraordinary circumstances were other protections, outside of immigration laws, were potentially violated?

Let me be the one to say, no IDGAF what the law says. Biden fucked this whole country over by ignoring and manipulating our norms and fucking over every single American citizen. That’s war against the people. Whatever Trump does to get rid of ALL IMMIGRANT INVADERS I support it.

Not upholding laws, norms, regulations and protecting the citizens should be a crime.

Glock-n-Load says

Let me be the one to say, no IDGAF what the law says. Biden fucked this whole country over by ignoring and manipulating our norms and fucking over every single American citizen. That’s war against the people. Whatever Trump does to get rid of ALL IMMIGRANT INVADERS I support it.

1000%

If we don't deport by any means necessary, there won't be anything left of any Constitution to protect.

AmericanKulak says

DeficitHawk says

OK help me understand where our understandings diverge.

So, you admit that Executive appointed officials make the primary determination in deportation cases and that is considered enough due process except in extraordinary circumstances were other protections, outside of immigration laws, were potentially violated?

I agree immigration and deportation proceedings are typically administrative, and they are run by the executive branch. An "Immigration Judge" is an executive branch official who presides over such administrative proceedings. "Presiding official" and other terms have similar meaning in this context. They are all executive branch people. These proceedings do not involve federal (Constitution Article III) judges.

The administrative procedures follwed must enable due process... including the right to be heard and present evidence, and an impartial decision maker. Actions taken must follow the decision made etc... If the elements of due process are present, due process is satisfied irrespective of the fact that the whole process is carried out by a non-judicial branch.

If the procedures followed do not enable due process (example: if hearings are not permitted, evidence is not heard, no impartial decision maker hears the evidence, actions taken not consistent with decision made... etc) then the proceedings violate due process of the constitution. Thats when the federal courts will get involved.

Federal (article III) courts don't get involved in typical administrative immigration proceedings. They only get involved when there is a legal or constitutional objection to the law being enforced, or the administrative process used. And when they DO get involved, it is just to untangle the legality and constitutionality of those issues. Not to re-do the basic fact finding, etc.

For immigration proceedings, the executive branch runs the shop. But they have to adhere to due process, and if they violate due process, they have to answer to SCOTUS.

DeficitHawk says

I agree immigration and deportation proceedings are typically administrative, and they are run by the executive branch. An "Immigration Judge" is an executive branch official who presides over such administrative proceedings. "Presiding official" and other terms have similar meaning in this context. They are all executive branch people. These proceedings do not involve federal (Constitution Article III) judges.

Thank You.

Now explain how Boasberg suddenly came to the conclusion after decades, that deportees need a full judiciary hearing.

Then give me a recipe for Tapioca Pudding, and tell me the distance between Intercourse, PA and Buffalo Breath, WY.

AmericanKulak says

Then give me a recipe for Tapioca Pudding, and tell me the distance between Intercourse, PA and Buffalo Breath, WY.

As a learned language model, I do no like Tapioca Pudding. Oh, crap....

AmericanKulak says

Now explain how Boasberg suddenly came to the conclusion after decades, that deportees need a full judiciary hearing.

This, I will look into. I did not know that he made this conclusion, and I will have to research it.

I do think, in the 'Maryland man' case, that the administrative procedure did NOT satisfy due process, so the federal courts are absolutely right to intervene. The administrative procedure resulted in an order NOT to deport... but they deported him anyway... so that is absolutely a failure of due process.

But that is not the same thing as requiring every deportee to require an Article III judiciary hearing.

Give me a bit to read up on what you are saying.

DeficitHawk says

You dont have to agree with me.

I'm glad we can agree on something, DHbot.

You know your legal system is controlled by a secret handshake club of a foreign power (Inns of Court, City of London) when this kind of shit goes on. The judicial administrators of City of London legislate as they go along ad hoc.

AmericanKulak says

Impossible. The Constitution gives total power over immigration and foreign policy to the Congress and Executive. Only "Thwough them to the gwound, very woughly, Centuwion, before deporting them" law could be unconstitutional. But while the "Very Woughly" part could be overturned, whatever standard Brian violated and was being deported on would still stand.

I think what you are saying is that Congress has broad authority to set immigration policies, and the courts will steer clear of micromanaging their laws. I agree. A law would have to clearly violate the constitution for the courts to intervene. But it is not impossible.

Hypothetically, imagine that a democratic-controlled congress reasoned that every immigrant who drove a pickup truck would likely vote republican if they naturalized, and every immigrant who drove a Prius would vote democratic. And so they ordered that all pickup truck driving immigrants be deported while immigrants who drove a Prius could naturalize immediately.

The courts would likely see through the motives of this act and conclude it is an attack on the first amendment. They could strike it down on that basis, and they should.

I do not think 'banning criminals and gang members from immigrating' violates the constitution. But it IS possible for the courts to reject the constitutionality of immigration acts. They are not immune to judicial review on constitutional grounds.

DeficitHawk says

AmericanKulak says
Now explain how Boasberg suddenly came to the conclusion after decades, that deportees need a full judiciary hearing.

This, I will look into. I did not know that he made this conclusion, and I will have to research it.

I could not find this ruling, can you give me a reference? I only found a ruling on halting AEA deportations, and contempt proceedings for violating that order.

DeficitHawk says

DeficitHawk says

AmericanKulak says
Now explain how Boasberg suddenly came to the conclusion after decades, that deportees need a full judiciary hearing.

This, I will look into. I did not know that he made this conclusion, and I will have to research it.

I could not find this ruling, can you give me a reference? I only found a ruling on halting AEA deportations, and contempt proceedings for violating that order.

Surely the DHbot can scrape the legal databases to corroborate the reference?

stereotomy says

Surely the DHbot can scrape the legal databases to corroborate the reference?

I tried, but I couldn't find what AmericanKulak is saying.. A ruling requiring article III judicial review for every immigration case??. I don't think Boasberg make such a ruling. But if someone sends me a link to the ruling, I'd read it and give my take.

By the way, mere opinion is enough for deportation, right @Deficithawk?

AmericanKulak says

By the way, mere opinion is enough for deportation, right Deficithawk?

I don't know what this means.

btw for Boasberg, all I can find is the case on alien enemies act. AEA will definitely have to get argued through the federal courts, and presumably the supreme court because its use in peacetime is subject to constitutional challenge. That shouldn't surprise anyone.

All of these attempts to bypass due process are just theater to create a spectacle and generate rage bait for both sides. Of course the federal courts will get involved in these cases.

If the administration wants to follow immigration laws and follow due process in administrative immigration hearings, as has been done in countless cases in prior administrations, the federal courts will stay out of it.