patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

You don't have to trust my motives. You just have to comply with the laws and the constitution. Its why we have them.

The motive is to keep illegals and overstays here by requiring hearings, many of which will be in urban blue areas, but even if they aren't, the sheer volume will de facto keep them here years longer due to the case load.

Nope, this is an Administrative Process, they are not accused of a crime.

We don't need to have a hearing before police can escort teenagers off the factory property, regardless of whether they had spray paint or not, and don't need to wait for a judge to agree they were trespassing. They don't even need to be charged or so much as detained AT ALL. Just escorted off the property.

Another example: You are stopped by the police and have no license, registration, or insurance documentation.

Your car can and will be impounded. Yes, you will get a hearing at a later date if the police are nice enough not to arrest you on the spot.

So, Illegals with no documentation can simply be sent back home and have their hearing via ZOOM.

Misc says

We're not in favor of giving up our rights, Just those rights granted to the illegals that were obtained fraudulently.

This is the main point. You are not allowed due process. If you file the paperwork for refugee status fine, but that's not the case. He went to court for a crime. Sorry but you're gone as a woman beater even if with the correct paperwork. Which I believe he didn't even have. He's the legit definition of an illegal immigrant criminal.

Two laws that in my book that should result in immediate removal. Also note, it's just removal to country of origin outside of Venzuela so far. You go home. Home is not your neighbors house uninvited. Someone sneaks into your house while you're on a one week vacation, do you let them stay? That's what you're arguing Deficit. So I have to live with this person for due process? Nope, get the hell out.

WookieMan says

Home is not your neighbors house uninvited. Someone sneaks into your house while you're on a one week vacation, do you let them stay? That's what you're arguing Deficit. So I have to live with this person for due process? Nope, get the hell out.

You'll have to accept him in your home until a judge orders that it is indeed your home about 3 months from now. All costs borne by you

DeficitHawk,

I hope you stick around, I appreciate that you answer all pertinent questions.

The courts concluded that he was an illegal alien, but you have pointed out they did not issue a deportation order. I am not at all familiar with immigration laws. Is a deportation order a mere technicality or are there some reasons for which an illegal might not be deported?

If a deportation order must follow after establishing an alien's ineligibility to stay, why was it not issued?

DeficitHawk says

The whole point of having due process in our constitution

They're not part of our constitution. They don't have rights. Unless they filled out proper paperwork, no due process is necessary. We are just moving them back home. Not harming them either.

We have processes to enter. I don't believe "Maryland Man" did anything. There's no due process needed if he cannot provide credentials/ID/paperwork. He took a risk, beat his lady and should leave.

yawaraf says

If a deportation order must follow after establishing an alien's ineligibility to stay, why was it not issued?

As you said he went to court and was deemed an illegal alien. We flew him back home at tax payer costs. What did this administration do wrong or illegal? He broke a couple of laws that we know of.

This isn't some guy that crossed the Rio and picks crops, goes home to his wife and kids and has a family. I don't have a problem really with those types, but they still broke our laws. They're not going to deport that type for now. Get the criminals out. They did. Kudos. Not sure why anyone would be against this. He's not an American citizen. And I don't care about international treaties. This is our country. I pay massive taxes. Get the shit out of here.

DeficitHawk says

You just have to comply with the laws and the constitution. Its why we have them.

If Biden and others had followed the law and apprehended and swiftly deported illegals instead of trafficking them like cartel, we would not be in this terrible situation. Nobody on your team cried about all the ways Biden failed to enforce law. Seems incredulous to expect an audience now just because orange man bad has the resolute desk.

AmericanKulak says

they can Zoom call into a hearing in the US from their country of origin

Im ok with using remote tools like Zoom if there are appeals if it can expedite procedures. IF the hearing judge issues a deportation order, I think its ok to deport immediately even if the person intends to appeal, and allow zoom meetings.. I'd be fine with that.

But this guy was deported against a court order, and isn't being offered any zoom hearing to contest it.

I am NOT ok with sending a person back wihtout a court order and then doing the initial hearing remotely in asylum cases. That doesn't make sense for obvious reasons.

yawaraf says

Is a deportation order a mere technicality or are there some reasons for which an illegal might not be deported

Its not a mere technicality. Following court orders is the fundamental mechanism of due process. Go to court, present the case, get a decision/order from the judge.

The judge in his case decided he should not be deported and issued an order NOT to deport. There are reasons why a judge might decide this way. We have laws which grant asylum to illegal immigrants in some cases. The judge may have decided this was one of them.

The people on this thread seem to think that we should ignore that particular law, and ignore the court orders, and just "Do whatever they want".

WookieMan says

What did this administration do wrong or illegal

They denied due process for a person who was entitled it, and they violated a court order by deporting him when there was an order not to deport.

That's what they did wrong.

DeficitHawk says

The judge in his case decided he should not be deported and issued an order NOT to deport.

So the alien has his day in court, it is determined he entered the country illegally, the judge orders him to not be deported. You then present some speculation as to why a judge could rule this way. However, we are talking about a specific case. Why did the judge order that he not be deported? If it is so hard to provide the facts? There must have been a very good reason to keep him in the United States. Why isn't that the first thing that's presented?

MolotovCocktail says

HeadSet says

Unfortunately, DeficitHawk is correct on the current due process rules. Unless an illegal was issued an Expedited Removal Order by Customs and Border Protection officers at the border, airports and other ports of entry while trying to enter the US without the proper documentation or who lied or used fraudulent documents when trying to enter the US, the illegal has to go before a judge.

Then explain how tens of millions of illegals were deported by Clinton, Bush and Obama.

Doesn't that count as "deported" those who were merely turned away at the border? In 1954 Eisenhower was able to mass export illegals, though.

DeficitHawk says

Don't be to quick to compromise your rights.

How are my rights compromised when millions of illegals are shipped back to fuckistan?

yawaraf says

Why did the judge order that he not be deported? If it is so hard to provide the facts? There must have been a very good reason to keep him in the United States. Why isn't that the first thing that's presented?

I dont know. You can research it if you are interested. I havent.

Patrick says

mell

The author of the thread, AmericanKulak, is on your ignore list. To unignore him, click your own icon, then "edit profile" in upper right, then at the bottom of that edit profile page, under "ignored users", click his name.

Checked and he didn't show up as ignored(possible though). Had to follow and unfollow to get this thread back.

DeficitHawk says

WookieMan says

What did this administration do wrong or illegal

They denied due process for a person who was entitled it, and they violated a court order by deporting him when there was an order not to deport.

That's what they did wrong.

He entered the country illegally. That's illegal. He's not a citizen. I don't care about the court case. He has no right to be here. Unless you filed the proper paperwork you can get tossed at any moment. Have a birth certificate. Valid passport. Even with that he likely overstayed and it and you're booted. No due process needed. Beat his spouse/girlfriend. Member of a known violent gang. The left looks like idiots on this topic. I'm not calling you one, but come on dude. I feel like this is a troll at this point.

WookieMan says

DeficitHawk says

WookieMan says

What did this administration do wrong or illegal

They denied due process for a person who was entitled it, and they violated a court order by deporting him when there was an order not to deport.

That's what they did wrong.

He entered the country illegally. That's illegal. He's not a citizen. I don't care about the court case. He has no right to be here. Unless you filed the proper paperwork you can get tossed at any moment. Have a birth certificate. Valid passport. Even with that he likely overstayed and it and you're booted. No due process needed. Beat his spouse/girlfriend. Member of a known violent gang. The left looks like idiots on this topic. I'm not calling you one, but come on dude. I feel like this is a troll at this point.

You are focusing on what you want to be the outcome of the case. That's fine. I don't disagree with you on the outcome.

I am focusing on the process. You are willing to throw process out the window to get the outcome. I am not.

If someone commits murder, and the police do a dragnet search for evidence without a search warrant, violating 4th amendment to gather evidence, and the killer is convicted as a result of the tainted evidence... is that ok? Even if the killer truly was guilty?

To me its NOT ok. Because preserving the rights in our constitution is more important than the outcome of the individual criminal case.

IF the DOJ lawyers had spent 1% of the effort people on this thread have spent to prepare a court briefing, they probably could have followed due process to get the outcome they wanted anyway. The fact that they arent even trying to follow the process is the point.

DeficitHawk says

I dont know. You can research it if you are interested. I havent.

so you don't know the legal reasoning? Was there any legal reasoning at all? Judges often just issue court orders without explanation.

It seems to me your ultimate goal is keeping mass illegal immigration going, you really don't care why they need a hearing at all.

DeficitHawk says

I am focusing on the process. You are willing to throw process out the window to get the outcome. I am not.

Yeah, not buying that excuse from somebody who just said they don't know the reasoning and haven't bothered to look at why a tresspasser can't be removed without a hearing months in the future.

And of course, I suspect you know enough to do they can't be held until the hearing, so many illegals would simply skip the hearing as a no-show and just stay anyway.

AmericanKulak says

It seems to me your ultimate goal is keeping mass illegal immigration going, you really don't care why they need a hearing at all.

Like I said to patrick, you don't have to trust my motives. I don't have to trust yours.

But we both have to follow the laws and the constitution. Its not that hard to understand.

DeficitHawk says

But we both have to follow the laws and the constitution. Its not that hard to understand.

Trespassers can be removed without a hearing. They can contest from Guatemala. So Due Process can be had over Zoom from Cartagena.

Process is just a bureaucratic tool to get what they want. Process != Justice.

DeficitHawk says

But we both have to follow the laws and the constitution. Its not that hard to understand.

Will they be kept in jail until the hearing? Or will they just skip the hearing and stay in the country?

If we bill MSNBC, NPR, PBS, and the Dem party each $10M for every skipped deportation hearing, as a kind of bond, I'd consider the hearing without deportation first.

It's a GUARANTEE that once activist judges stop the deportations without a hearing, the next thing they'll do is claim that detaining illegals with NO EVIDENCE of their legal right to be here is Nazi Unconscionable Evil, and they must be released pending their hearing date.

This is important to the Bureaucracy (aka "Our Democracy") because by detaining illegals pending a hearing, they may choose to voluntarily accept free deportation. And the Bureaucracy wants them here and counting towards electoral seats and formulas for federal distribution to states and of course because America is Evil and must be flooded with Third Worlders

AmericanKulak says

Will they be kept in jail until the hearing? Or will they just skip the hearing and stay in the country?

It can be either way. IF the person is deemed a flight risk they should be detained until hearing. If not, they can be released. Statistics on past cases in similar circumstances can be used as a gauge of flight risk.

I'm not a legal expert by any means... but there are the phrases "Reasonable suspicion" and "Probable Cause".

Reasonable suspicion is grounds for ICE or a law enforcement officer to go start asking questions and investigate a situation, or go ask for search warrants if needed. If that yields evidence of illegal status, thats probable cause.
Probable Cause is grounds for ICE or law enforcement to detain someone to await a hearing.

If there is probable cause that someone has broken immigration law, they can be detained until a hearing can be held. I don't see a reason why the period of time between a detention and a hearing needs to be very long at all. The evidence is pretty straightforward to prepare and establish. People only need enough time to gather their documents etc. I also think its fine to deport someone immediately after a deportation order is issued, even if the person intends to appeal, and let the appeals take place remotely via zoom or whatever.

If people don't like the asylum laws or other immigration laws, they can be changed by congress. I bet asylum parameters can be narrowed without running afoul of UN conventions we signed. But the laws should not be ignored by the administration.

Everyone wants to blame "Activist judges"... but they are just enforcing the laws we have by the processes guaranteed by our constitution.

DeficitHawk says

If someone commits murder, and the police do a dragnet search for evidence without a search warrant, violating 4th amendment to gather evidence, and the killer is convicted as a result of the tainted evidence... is that ok? Even if the killer truly was guilty?

To me its NOT ok. Because preserving the rights in our constitution is more important than the outcome of the individual criminal case.

In many countries this is actually ok if you can save at least one life in the process, i.e. if there is active danger from the perp. Aka the Jack Bauer defense. But if it turns out they were in the wrong (had no credible belief that there was grave danger) they're in somewhay hot water.

DeficitHawk says

I dont know. You can research it if you are interested. I havent.

Here's what I found:
"A U.S. immigration judge had shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador in 2019, ruling that he would likely face persecution there by local gangs that had terrorized his family. He also was given a federal permit to work in the United States, where he was a metal worker and union member, according to Abrego Garcia’s lawyers."

https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportation-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-adc6976c9e294b4c4b45d5a692112066

Technically you might be right, the executive might have ignored a court judgement.

The reason for the judgment matters. Laws are meaningless if they are not just. I assume "Maryland Man" is in no danger in El Salvador since all the suspected gang-bangers have received free housing courtesy of the government. Furthermore, when he was allegedly fleeing from persecution, he could have stopped in Mexico, there was no need for him to illegally enter the United States. Finally, why are we, American citizens expected to submit to the law but illegal aliens are exempt?

I fully support a system of limited government with proper checks on its power. However, I do not support a system of lawlessness. Are aliens free to ignore our laws, yet the same laws prevent us from kicking them out of the country?

I think many people would be sympathetic to your argument if you could name the harm that was done by the administration. This man suffered no harm. He was sent home.

I think the unjust application of the law is much more harmful than the administration's violation of the law in this particular case.

Which administration before Trump has done anything meaningful to expel the illegal aliens? If Trump is responsible for breaking the law when deporting one alien then the previous presidents should also be responsible for each and single alien that entered the country during their terms. Who did the greater evil?

DeficitHawk says

IF the DOJ lawyers had spent 1% of the effort people on this thread have spent to prepare a court briefing, they probably could have followed due process to get the outcome they wanted anyway. The fact that they arent even trying to follow the process is the point.

Trump shut the border without Congress. Something Biden said could not be done. And now Trump is following through with deportation of the millions of illegals that Biden and Obama essentially trafficked to the entire nation like a cartel. But you want to strain at gnat while we just swallowed a herd of camels. Get over it. This is how you lose another election. Keep it up! It’s gonna be easy fodder for the next congressional campaign.

mell says

In many countries this is actually ok if you can save at least one life in the process

Yes. I understand the motive here. and I understand the temptation to allow it because of the benefit and the outcome in the specific case.

But if you allow this, then you undermine the core principles that our country is based on. So it is important NOT to do it, or else we will abandon our principles. In the USA it is not allowed. Evidence gathered this way has to be barred from the trial even if it the evidence itself is accurate and true.

PeopleUnited says

Trump shut the border without Congress.

Thats good. I support stopping illegal border crossings.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

In many countries this is actually ok if you can save at least one life in the process

Yes. I understand the motive here. and I understand the temptation to allow it because of the benefit and the outcome in the specific case.

But if you allow this, then you undermine the core principles that our country is based on. So it is important NOT to do it, or else we will abandon our principles. In the USA it is not allowed. Evidence gathered this way has to be barred from the trial even if it the evidence itself is accurate and true.

There's a difference between evidence admissible in a trial and what's allowed in an emergency situation such as an invasion. Sure if he were to get a trial later on he may or may not prevail but its allowed to act first and trial later, if at all. As I said the definiton of an invasion is more than fulfilled. If we had no more than 1k illegals total per year maybe everyone could get a trial. Long way to get there, until then deport away

DeficitHawk says

IF the person is deemed a flight risk they should be detained until hearing. If

By whom? By the actual on the ground experts, or by a federal level lawyer-in-robes who think they are experts on everything from contract law to environment regulations to national security all in one person?

mell says

In many countries this is actually ok if you can save at least one life in the process, i.e. if there is active danger from the perp. Aka the Jack Bauer defense. But if it turns out they were in the wrong (had no credible belief that there was grave danger) they're in somewhay hot water.

Hot Pursuit is also constitutional.

Yet again to the Trespasser analogy. We don't have a hearing before the cops physically force a trespasser to leave the property. Deport them, if you will/

DeficitHawk says

But if you allow this, then you undermine the core principles that our country is based on.

Nonsense.

Does the Coast Guard have the right to search yachts for illegals or drugs? Do cops have the right to physically remove trespassers? Does a customs agent have a right to seize lighters of people trying to board a plane? Those are often (in not overwhelming majority) full US Citizens.

Does immigration have the right to refuse entry? All without a hearing?

Of course they do.

Like I said, this isn't about due process. It's about keeping illegals in the country.

DeficitHawk says

Thats good. I support stopping illegal border crossings.

Now we have to go back and easily facilitate the deportation of those millions previous Administrations broke the rules to let in.

What was done by ignoring the law, can be reversed without due process.

PeopleUnited says

Justice for illegals is deportation.

Justice for Americans is deportation of illegals.

It is that simple.

Let’s not cry about due process. Let cry about the fact there are STILL way too many illegal aliens in this country. We need justice, now!

Anyone standing in the way of the swift and expedited deportation of known illegal aliens is obstructing justice.

DeficitHawk says

But we both have to follow the laws

Laws about entering the United States - ignored and even actively subverted by abetting the illegals and even flying the illegals into and distributing them around the country.

International law that says asylum must be sought in the first country entered - totally ignored.

The left is not concerned about following laws. Laws were ignored to allow the flood of illegals to entry, but now the left wants a high bar for any deportations in order to keep the flood here. It was always about importing Dem voters with no regard to how the mass import of cheap labor affects the working class.

AmericanKulak says

What was done by ignoring the law, can be reversed without due process.

Nope

AmericanKulak says

By whom? By the actual on the ground experts, or by a federal level lawyer-in-robes who think they are experts on everything from contract law to environment regulations to national security all in one person?

Usually its by the judge. I thought I was agreeing with you though, its ok to detain people if there is probable cause they have committed a crime and are awaiting a hearing/trial. but maybe I misunderstood your intent.

AmericanKulak says

Does immigration have the right to refuse entry? All without a hearing?

Yes, they do.

ICE has the ability to refuse entry to arriving immigrants, and due process is NOT required for this refusal. No hearing is required to refuse entry to an arriving immigrant. That was a key conclusion in the supreme court cases I cited above, and is the basis of the 'Expedited removal for arriving immigrants' section of our 1996 immigration reform laws.

But this applies only to arriving immigrants... it does not apply to the person discussed in this thread, who had been here for a long time. Such people are entitled due process, as has been found in the supreme court cases I cited above.

HeadSet says

The left is not concerned about following laws. Laws were ignored to allow the flood of illegals to entry, but now the left wants a high bar for any deportations in order to keep the flood here. It was always about importing Dem voters with no regard to how the mass import of cheap labor affects the working class.

Neither side cares about laws. Lets be honest. Both sides point at the other sides disregard for the law. And both sides do indefensible things in support of their political objectives.

But lets talk about the rest of your comment, because there is some truth to it.

Democrats want to replace illegal immigration with legal immigration while still keeping the total immigration numbers high, and have some path for legalizing long time illegal residents..
Republicans want lower overall immigration (Legal and illegal)

A compromise/deal is needed in overall immigration reform, but neither side will work together in good faith, because the status quo is OK for both sides... both sides benefit by f-ing over the illegal immigrants by exploiting their illegal status for cheap labor.

DeficitHawk says

Democrats want to replace illegal immigration with legal immigration while still keeping the total immigration numbers high, and have some path for legalizing long time illegal residents..

Well, we agree here. The Dems want to flood the country with the world's poor and them legalize them to vote. Bonus for the Dems is the cheap labor for large Dem donors like Tyson.

DeficitHawk says

both sides... both sides benefit by f-ing over the illegal immigrants by exploiting their illegal status for cheap labor.

No, that is just the Dems. Republicans want to remove the cheap illegal labor and install tariffs specifically to bring higher paying jobs back to America.