patrick.net

WookieMan says

Fact is this guy if he was legal could have a family member prove it and give identification.

Exactly, THIS IS due process.... having the right and opportunity to bring this type of information and contest the circumstances of your arrest, and have that reviewed by a judge if there is any dispute with the authorities.. THAT is what due process is... If you dont have due process, you don't get to introduce any facts or evidence to correct any errors. You just have to hope the authorities don't make an error (whether they do it on purpose or not!). So if the authorities say the magic words "I thought he was illegal" then they can incarcerate that person for life with no judicial review, and no possibility of appeals.

Perhaps you trust this administration to not make errors? But what if it were a different administration that wished you didn't exist? What if Hunter Biden was president and went on an extra-judicial rampage against all the people who said mean things about him? Would you trust THAT administration to not make any errors? or would you want an opportunity in court to challenge the authorities if they were mistaken or lying?

I just don't know why you are in such a rush to forfeit your rights. I don't know why you want to forfeit other peoples rights. Doesn't make sense to me. I want to keep my rights.

WE can get the bad guys out AND preserve our core values as Americans. Its not either-or.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20xzdxk53no

Man deported to El Salvador will never live in US, says White House

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on accusations that Mr Ábrego García is a gang member and accused the 29-year-old of domestic violence.

She cited records showing his US citizen wife once filed a protective order against him. ...

Leavitt told a press briefing: "If he [Mr Ábrego García] ever ends up back in the United States, he would immediately be deported again.

I think maybe people arent understanding the concern about due process. This is really an "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face" kind of situation.

You cant deny due process to other people without denying it for yourselves. Because if you deny due process to a subset of people, then your rights can be taken away simply by the declaration (true or not) that you belong to that subset of people, and you wont have the right to contest that declaration.

Thats the problem with giving up our rights. Thats why we have the bill of rights. I like the bill of rights, I think its a pretty concise summary of our core values as americans.

Abandon it at your risk....

Edit... No, Don't abandon it at your risk. Dont abandon it at all. Keep it!

Why would we give away our 'rights' to every illegal who fell off the turnip truck over the border. If they want 'rights', then they should come in the legal way. If they came in the illegal way, they automatically abdicated their 'rights' and shipping them back to point of origin is more merciful than lengthy incarceration or shooting them outright as non uniformed enemy combatants (which many of them are).

Confusing our 'rights' with their 'non-rights' is not particularly enlightening, or even common sense.

If you trust the courts to get things right with “due process” then you aren’t paying attention. And the judges are just as corrupt as the lawyer pool from which they are appointed.

PeopleUnited says

If you trust the courts to get things right with “due process” then you aren’t paying attention. And the judges are just as corrupt as the lawyer pool from which they are appointed.

so, shall we just trust the administration with no checks? I dont think so. Checks and balances are not perfect, but they are better than nothing.

Ceffer says

Confusing our 'rights' with their 'non-rights'

If you dont have a functioning judicial system overseeing this stuff, you cant tell these things apart! Pretty soon its YOUR non-rights and 'oops, to bad you forfeit your rights to challenge this!'

That’s the thing. There is no check, nor balance. Just political theatre. You are upset about the wrong thing. What you should be upset about is that everyone is lying to you. You think the government is there to protect you? It’s not. It’s there to protect the status quo (the wealthy control everything that matters, and even convince you that your voice matters in government affairs).

Your only hope is not government, due process or even the constitution. Your only hope is God. If you find God, everything else makes sense. But if you don’t believe God, you’ll believe something else and continue to be dissatisfied.

False equivalency. You don't protect the non-rights of an illegal because you are afraid that your own legal rights will be abridged. They are two distinct and different things. One is inappropriate and the other is appropriate.

The judicial system captured through Soros is already dysfunctional, and the Federal is not really part of our country, they are managed from the City of London. They are already doing things that are entirely out of bounds because they have been corrupted.

Corrupting the judiciary further by granting 'rights' to those who have not legally acquired them will not protect those who legitimately have those rights, it vitiates those rights on their face. They are no longer 'rights' protecting citizens, they are a free for all to lawfare illegals.

It's more or less the opposite of legal. The courts have demonstrated that they can fool us that they have the power act arbitrarily according to an agenda, which is color of law not law.

DeficitHawk says

I want gang members deported, WITH due process.

That is the argument of someone who does not want illegals deported at all. With the sheer numbers of criminal aliens already here and more that arrive, the criminals will die of old age before their court date come up. The pretend concern about "due process" is nothing more than wanting to place an impossible bottleneck in deporting anyone.

You will never get me to agree that we should abandon our right to not be incarcerated in a foreign country without due process and judicial oversight.

Citizens and non-citizens alike. We should not grant that authority to the executive branch without judicial oversight.

I do agree with PeopleUnited, there is a lot of theater in this. At some level, Trump may be trying to do something so blatently overreaching, and causing a constitutional crisis that people freak out about it, and then when he backs off to 'only being aggressive about enforcing immigration law while abiding by due process', everyone will calm down... sort of negotiating tactic. Thing is, Im OK with that end result without the theatrical prelude, but these theatrics seem to result in poorly organized policy in the long run. Same problem with the trade war going on.

Nobody is testifying that an American Citizen has been deported and incarcerated in a foreign country. There are tons of people who know you are an American citizen. If you were literally deported, and incarcerated in Ukraine, many people would testify that you are a US citizen and so your leap of logic is not even valid.

But if you want to practice outrage, be upset that our government let an illegal alien run around for 14 years before finally returning him to his home country safely. We don’t have rule of law, we have rulers who care about their wealthy masters and all else comes secondary. They pay lip service to the law but in their hearts they serve only the wealthy who run everything, including wars, colleges, health care and media. Soon they will take even your very ability to choose and make it their own.

Sadly for many they won’t even realize they gave up their choice, because how many people even practice critical thinking and can make their own educated choices?

HeadSet says

That is the argument of someone who does not want illegals deported at all. With the sheer numbers of criminal aliens already here and more that arrive, the criminals will die of old age before their court date come up

No, thats just obstructionist thinking. There are lots of ways to tackle problems like this at scale and with expedited time process. It doesnt have to be a serialized, drawn out set of court proceedings. There can be a standard set of criteria, check boxes, etc.. and the courts can review in bulk however they want and pick out the exceptions to review in detail. They need to be efficient and fast, and they should be held accoutable for the speed of the process. The key point is you have to let people have a chance to provide evidence if they should not be deported, and the judicial branch should be the arbiter of whether they are right.. The administration is trying to prevent judicial oversight rather than enable efficient oversight. Thats wrong.

PeopleUnited says

Nobody is testifying that an American Citizen has been deported and incarcerated in a foreign country.

Yet

Are you still waiting for Sasquatch too?

PeopleUnited says

Are you still waiting for Sasquatch too?

If we dont hold accountability to due process, it will absolutely come to pass that American citizens get deported to a foreign prison.

Thats not sasquatch. Thats just something that will happen if you remove all the safeguards which prevent it.

No safeguards have been removed. And you absolutely are more concerned about an invented hypothetical than the reality staring you in the face: that the government let an illegal alien run around for 14 years and THEN a corrupt judge tried to prevent his deportation!

But you are worried about a hypothetical Sasquatch.

DeficitHawk says

No, thats just obstructionist thinking. There are lots of ways to tackle problems like this at scale and with expedited time process. It doesnt have to be a serialized, drawn out set of court proceedings. There can be a standard set of criteria, check boxes, etc.. and the courts can review in bulk however they want and pick out the exceptions to review in detail. They need to be efficient and fast, and they should be held accoutable for the speed of the process.

Question. Was the guy here legally or not? My understanding is he was not. As a first world country we've been one of the only ones that look the other way on illegals.

If you can't prove where you're from that means you're not participating in our system. Love or hate it, that's fact. Do you want voter ID? I think we should have it. I'm generally libertarian/independent. No other country allows non-citizens to roam around their country. That includes 3rd world countries.

The guy had to go. It's not something a judge or jury needs to decide. That would take years. We saw it with the death of a user here. So what happens in the meantime? They're out on bail and just doing whatever they want after being here illegally.

I like hearing leftist/liberal points of view and you've been cordial in your comments. But the guy had to go and the left is 100% politicizing for whatever reason that I don't comprehend. If an illegal moved into your house in the night, what would be your reaction?

WookieMan says

But the guy had to go and the left is 100% politicizing for whatever reason that I don't comprehend.

I think you are focusing on this person. I am not. I dont know the details of his case and dont care too much about the outcome of it. If his case gets properly reviewed and he gets kicked out, I am fine with that.

I am concerned about the process. I dont want to sacrifice our core value of due process in the effort to enforce the laws. I view this situation as a trial balloon to see what will fly and what wont fly, and I want the dust to settle on preserving the principle of due process.

Thats our disconnect. To me, its about the bill of rights, and ensuring our values as Americans are preserved. Its not about this guy.

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1913358867708493982

DeficitHawk says

WookieMan says

But the guy had to go and the left is 100% politicizing for whatever reason that I don't comprehend.

I think you are focusing on this person. I am not. I dont know the details of his case and dont care too much about the outcome of it. If his case gets properly reviewed and he gets kicked out, I am fine with that.

I am concerned about the process. I dont want to sacrifice our core value of due process in the effort to enforce the laws. I view this situation as a trial balloon to see what will fly and what wont fly, and I want the dust to settle on preserving the principle of due process.

Thats our disconnect. To me, its about the bill of rights, and ensuring our values as Americans are preserved. Its not about this guy.

Get a left wing immigration judge and all of what you stated is purely academic or rhetoric.

.

https://x.com/WesternDecline/status/1913359383817314781

Patrick says

It’s also pretty obvious by his recent actions, that Judge “Jeb” Boasberg is angling to be Kilmar’s running mate in ‘28.

Here's some text from the appeals court ruling yesterday on this case.... The judges are saying it better than I am, but I basically agree with them, and these are the points I have been trying to make:

"It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear. The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings...."

"The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning. "

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25900495-2025-04-17-court-order-dckt/

DeficitHawk says

If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings...."

AGAIN, it does not matter as that is all academic rhetoric if you get a Democrat or left wing judge.

.

It's the lawfare stall to keep the subversive and military age illegals in the country for as long as possible, bogged down on a case by case basis.

The judges need to be arrested as undeclared foreign agents of the Inns of Court (City of London secret handshake club controlling the laws, commerce and banking of the British Empire). The judges are agents of the Crown.

AD says

AGAIN, it does not matter as that is all academic rhetoric if you get a Democrat or left wing judge.

Just because they worry they might not win a case is not a valid reason to abandon our core rights and freedoms. Sometimes doing things properly takes more work and effort. They should not wimp out and abandon their duties because they worry it will be hard or they might not win.

Ceffer says

It's the lawfare stall to keep the subversive and military age illegals in the country for as long as possible, bogged down on a case by case basis.

The judges need to be arrested as undeclared foreign agents of the Inns of Court (City of London secret handshake club controlling the laws, commerce and banking of the British Empire). The judges are agents of the Crown.

Dude..... you cant go all "kill them all" every time someone doesn't agree with you.

DeficitHawk says

Dude..... you cant go all "kill them all" every time someone doesn't agree with you.

You seem to be arguing in good faith. I appreciate that. But they threw so much shit at Trump. This guy was here illegally and is part of a gang. It's a non-story really. I'm not getting deported to El Salvador. Then factor in the guy probably wasn't paying taxes for I think 6-8 years. His own spouse took him to court.

Talk about due process, but the guy didn't do THE process to get here. He gone.

Come on, this guy is not arguing in good faith. He ignores the fact that the corrupt government let millions of illegal aliens in, and then he compounds his willful ignorance by looking the other way while the corrupt courts and judges are fighting to prevent deportation of the illegal aliens.

He is arguing that we should allow the corrupt people to enforce the law. That is not good faith, that is the definition of bad faith. There is no “due process” when the court is corrupt.

There is really only one question, did you enter this country legally or illegaly? If illegal entry was committed, immediate deportation is the rightful action of enforcement of the law.

There is no other argument or “process” to be performed.

And remember, Jesus got “due process” before He was beaten beyond recognition and nailed to a tree to die.

You can have your due process, just remember it will be used against you too when the corrupt court needs to make an example of you or be rid of you. Don’t put faith in “due process”. Trust God.

PeopleUnited says

He is arguing that we should allow the corrupt people to enforce the law. That is not good faith, that is the definition of bad faith. There is no “due process” when the court is corrupt.

I'm in disagreement with him on this topic. I disagree with some here and they become complete ass holes. That's why I say good faith. He could be wrong but he goes about it the right way. We need some leftist on the site. I'm not one, but all their views aren't wrong. Might not like them, but seems like a decent human. Hard to find now in this polarized world.

Due process is the right of legal citizens and natural, legally admitted immigrants, not illegal invaders. It's not goodness or kindness or 'self protection' to coddle invaders. It's lunacy and social suicide.

To flog due process as 'rights' of an illegal invader is a liberal delusion and a subversive Satanic inversion. Espousing this insidious policy is misprision. The courts are telling the citizens their rights mean nothing while promiscuously conferring their rights to the invader instead. It is the definition of trampllng the rights of legal citizens.

It does not mean to wish them harm, but it does mean the right to send them back where they came from and prevent them from organizing in antisocial or militant cells.

The DOD Law of War Manual has definitions of what invaders are entitled to, and it is not the due process of legal citizens or legally naturalized immigrants.

The courts that do this inversion are bent on subversion of the country they live in. This is the point where the military step in to constrain a subversive, captured, treasonous, and renegade court system. The courts are violating their oath to protect the country and the citizens and are working on behalf of an alien power.

https://patrick.net/post/1384303/2025-04-19-bill-ackman

As stated, granting 'due process' to illegal invaders is 'upside down' law.

https://t.me/BannonWarRoom/65593

Ceffer says

Due process is the right of legal citizens and natural, legally admitted immigrants, not illegal invaders.

Yes, and those who are so concerned about due process for Kilmar Abrego Garcia were quit mum about the due process for the J6 crowd.