patrick.net

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.

DeficitHawk says

But it IS possible for the courts to reject the constitutionality of immigration acts. They are not immune to judicial review on constitutional grounds.

All this can be done when they're sent back. Then come back legally. They don't have to stay here for due process. They're not protected by the constitution and laws that they already violated. We're just sending them home. No duress. Kind of a nice gesture on our part, considering how they got here was miserable and women and kids were likely raped.

Whatever their home country chooses to do is what they choose. Breaking laws has consequences though. A lot of these countries probably want some of these people back for their own labor and growth. Takes 15-20 years from birth to labor production. So technically we're doing a good thing booting them for other countries. It's a win win.

Fact is we need to focus on this hemisphere and help our neighbors. With Spanish or some dialect of it being the primary language and a lot of other countries knowing some English it should be easy. We would have been better off sending that $200B into Central and some to South American countries instead of Ukraine. South of Mexico in Central America could be a tourist hotbed. Instead of joining gangs or cartels they do real work. Tour guides in Costa Rica make good money. Belize was amazing on our cruise.

The problem with this thread is focusing on law. Look at the East right now? You want anything like that here? Ukraine, Israel, India, Pakistan, the entire middle east. We need to send these people back for the benefit of the US and our hemisphere. We basically have two languages, how many are there in the Eastern hemisphere? Shit load. Lost in translation isn't just a movie, it's real. Image a translator that has Ben Shapiro fast talkers translate to Russian. Not happening.

Either way we need to boost this hemisphere. Most here illegally are not contributing anything of value to Americans. I don't know how other people raise their kids but I got 3 that will bust their for $$$. One has his workers permit at 14. He do jobs illegals do. $15/hr is a lot for a kid which is the minimum I believe in IL. Everyone is so focus on adult labor. Illegals take away the work for kids and makes them lazy. It stunts the growth of American kids. I'm in that phase of parenting right now. Illegals are bad and we should make the countries south of us more prosperous and let the Eastern hemisphere take care of itself.

It's expensive to do things by plane and slow by ship. Why waste the time or money doing things in the Eastern hemisphere beside exporting goods there. I don't need a BMW. If they want to sell in this market build it here and hire Americans, not illegals that just send it home.

Edit: I know there are a bunch of grammar issues in this comment. I don't care to edit them. Been a long 3 days....

Maybe, just maybe the law is too complex and convoluted that Trump needs to just take action and defend the American homeland?

To answer AmericanKulak above: the lack of possession of the proper visa is sufficient for deportation, just like almost any other country.

Glock-n-Load says

Maybe, just maybe the law is too complex and convoluted that Trump needs to just take action and defend the American homeland?

Probably so. My issue is it's illegal. I can't go to Jamaica and get back in without a passport. That's illegal and I won't be let in. That's why I bring a copy of my passport, photo of it and location of the American embassy in case I lose it. Never happened but I'm a freak about that stuff.

But hey you cross the Rio and you get due process??? Sorry for the swearing but get fucked. You're out. Go back home and make your country better. You get a free flight or trip home. You'll still likely have access to capital in the states. I'm sick of some acting like it's some human rights violation or law. You can't even get into Canada with a DUI here in the states. But here illegals can commit crimes and stay including DUI. And they're already here illegally.

Did Canada give a drunk due process to go fish on their land? Nope. And no, I don't have a DUI and have been to Canada multiple times. Follow laws. My kids fish, I don't touch the fishing pole because I don't have a license for fishing. I'll watch and guide, but I'm not paying the fee as I'm not an avid fisherman. Following rules and laws is basic.

Hell when I fly fish in Montana is $42.50 for a 2 day license. $73.50 for 10 days. Consecutive. I've said it many times on this site I don't break the law. Montana would be a shit hole of litter and trash on the rivers and creeks. I don't like paying that much, but it's the law and I like clean spaces. Illegals didn't follow the law to get in. I could get kicked off a river, gear taken or even car impounded and NO due process in Montana. You're living in la la land Hawk.

Bottom line is get these fuckers out. 8 out of 10 of them I'd probably get along with. They just didn't get here legally.

Cambrdige dictionary definition of invasion:

An occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying or unwanted way.

I oppose using war time powers in peace time. Both with respect to Alien Enemies Act, and with respect to suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus.

I think its important to understand that democrats and republicans view this very differently. Democrats don't view the situation as an urgent emergency at all. Illegal immigrants have been coming to usa since it was created, and while enforcement is needed, it doesn't amount to any sort of national emergency. The notion that wartime powers would be invoked for this is totally ridiculous.

Republicans act like there is some imminent existential emergency unfolding.

Its pretty obvious why. Democrats want immigration because they think it is good. Republicans want no immigration because they think it is bad. Democrats want to replace illegal immigration with legal immigration and maintain a significant number of legal immigrants coming in. Republicans don't want this, they only want to stop illegal immigration and not replace it with legal immigration. The two sides fundamentally cant/wont agree on this because they have fundamentally different views about whether immigration is good or bad.

So to a republican... illegal immigration is cast as some emergency because the immigration itself is bad. To a democrat, the immigration itself is good, just the infraction of the illegal crossing/status is bad. Democrats equate illegal immigration to a low-level crime, like jaywalking... not something that warrants high priority of enforcement, and certainly not an existential threat. Democrats are fine to focus on immigrants that commit crimes and not worry much about the rest.

Republicans go out of their way to hype up examples of immigrant crime, etc to reinforce the notion of an emergency, but this messaging does not resonate with me, it doesn't match my every day experience with immigrants. IM sure some of you will respond with memes or whatever to my comment along these lines.

I work in an industry that has many many immigrants. My boss is an immigrant. Most of my direct reports are immigrants. Most of my peers are immigrants. H1B, and a variety of other immigration mechanisms. Does that suppress salaries? Yes of course it does. If there was no supply of immigrants to work in the field, my salary would be higher... But only for the short term... in the long term the industry would leave USA and go somewhere else.. Protectionist policies like tariffs are only short term... in the long term, such policies will only degrade the competitiveness of the protected population and cause it to fall behind. Its not possible to keep all of our industries in the USA without immigrants here. Our demographics don't support that, with boomers retiring and younger generations being smaller. So I accept that immigration is a good way to fill the holes in our demographics and sustain our industries.

Also, my personal interaction with immigrants I work with does not match up to the characterizations of these people as evil criminals that I hear from the right.

Anyway, my views on immigration and immigrants are totally different from most people on this site. That probably explains why I don't perceive illegal immigration as an existential emergency and dont support using wartime authority in peace time over it.

Oh, you’re opposed to it? Could it be you have an agenda?

Glock-n-Load says

Oh, you’re opposed to it? Could it be you have an agenda?

Glock, it seems from your comments that you don't agree with the concept of "Follow the law, follow the constitution".

You seem to be OK with violating the law intentionally if it achieves a political goal of yours. If that is the case, I dont see much point discussing with you.

I believe we are a nation of laws. Our government should follow the laws and follow the constitution. While law enforcement priorities/tactics/resources are a matter of political policy, the decision to have our government intentionally violate the law or constitution is not a matter of political policy.

Tell me if you agree with this point as a core value of our country.

DeficitHawk says

Glock, it seems from your comments that you don't agree with the concept of "Follow the law, follow the constitution".

20-40M illegals is an invasion. It has to be cleaned up. Declaring an invasion and suspending habeus corpus only for non-citizens is a perfectly Constitutional and reasonable process. That is moral, legal, and ethical.

Remember, you guys called a few unarmed protesters an "insurrection" for years, lied about deaths of officers and their causes (such as the officer who died of high blood pressure related causes days after the protest, claiming her was killed by 'insurrectionists'), and defended putting them in solitary confinement pending charges as totally legit.

We're not going to not mass deport, by incentive and force, millions of illegals that invaded our country, a huge number of them ironically during COVID lockdowns. We can do things.

Again, unelected judges have one job - determine conflicts of law. They are not the final arbiter of policies or the Superior Branch Above All Others.

By any means necessary.

If the democrat party is as crazy as I think they are, we ain’t seen nothing yet. And that’s a scary thought.

"Due process" is the rallying cry - the analogy is "seek permission rather than forgiveness,"

The counter argument is "seek forgiveness rather than permission." AKA - what's done is done, are we OK? For 30+ illegal rapefugees, the answer under Bidet was "YES!" Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I say "YES!" to mass deportations of rapefugees. I'm a fucking American citizen and I have nothing to fear and if I get swatted, my family all have valid US passports.

I want DHbot's job, he's probably making a mint by engaging Patnet as well as other "Alt-right" fringe forums.

News: Just today, the governor of Baja California state and her husband had their visas revoked.

She is Marina del Pilar Avila.

Some Mexicans say she's in with the "narcos"=cartels=gangsters.

DeficitHawk says

I oppose using war time powers in peace time. Both with respect to Alien Enemies Act, and with respect to suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus.

What is "peace time" to you? Not reading the rest of it. We're not in a peace time. We're literally being attacked by foreigners crossing our border illegally. You think 30-40M people we have no clue about in this country isn't an invasion????? It's a massive invasion.

Suspend anything you want. Hell allow people that know you're illegal to just shoot you. Illegals will destroy the rule of law. You seriously don't get the severity of this?

You're bat shit or trolling at this point. 30M fucking illegals. We added 9% to our population and we don't know who the hell they are. That seems like a god damn invasion to me. Could we even sent 30M men into war in another country? Hell no. You seriously do not understand the severity of this and that's sad.

Remember when the illegals got shipped to Martha's Vineyard and they called the national guard and had them all removed in 24 hours with absolutely no due process?

WookieMan says

We're not in a peace time. We're literally being attacked by foreigners

I dont agree with you. Illegal immigraton has been a chronic problem for hundreds of years. It is not some new existential threat. Its not the fault of one administration. This has happened in every administration since the country was founded.

This type of rage baiting is just setting up for whining later when the 'activist judges' get in the way of what you say you want to do.

Instead of engaging in some unconstitutional theater and propaganda, maybe try something more productive:
1) Set laws on employing illegal immigrants and enforce them
2) Modify Asylum laws to make it more efficient to work through cases.
3) Add any exclusionary laws congress wants to add (crime, gang association or whatever)
4) Make a robust legal immigration program that is only available to people who meet the new requirements, and encourage illegals to go apply for that instead of remaining illegal.
5) Work the cases through the procedures, following due process.

Its not really that complicated to do this stuff. The reason its not being done is because it requires political consensus and political compromise (item 4, for example is very powerful, but republicans wont do it). I think democrats do still have an appetite for comprehensive immigration reform, though it has been considered hopeless for the past 30 years or so because there is no compromise.

If the republicans don't want to drive for consensus to improve the situation and instead take a strategy of rash unconstitutional actions, then they will just be stymied by the courts. That seems like the current plan of this administration, and I have no sympathy for the people who advocate for this charade and then whine about the inevitable outcome.

Deportation is not legally classified as a punishment in most legal systems, including the United States, but rather as an administrative or civil measure.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that deportation is not punishment. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), the Court ruled that deportation is an exercise of the government’s sovereign power to control its borders and determine who may remain within them, not a penalty for criminal behavior.

In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984), the Court reaffirmed that deportation proceedings are civil, meaning constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause or the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment do not apply.

Being sent to one's home country is not punishment. It's going back to the place one grew up, has friends and family, knows the language and culture, etc.

@Patrick, deportation is a courtesy, an act of magnanimity on the part of the US to rapefugees who don't make the cut.

Instead of riding in trailers without water or food for up to 3 days, the US flies them in a chartered jet to whereverthefuck they're from, if they actually provide that information (if not, that's a 100 foot red flag right there).

No Coyotes, no gangs, just a plush seat on a jet plane so that they can rejoin mamacita and feel her tears of gratitude on his cheek.

What's not to like?