patrick.net

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.

HeadSet says

Republicans want to remove the cheap illegal labor

No way. Thats not generally true. Maybe you. But look at the county by county maps... who votes republican and who employs the immigrants?

These guys work on farms and agricultural jobs. Red red red. There is no way your fantasy is true. Republicans utilize the cheap illegal labor more than anyone.

DeficitHawk says

Neither side cares about laws.

Do not throw a phony moral equvilency here. Laws were flagrantly violated to get those illegals in and steps need to be taken to remove them. This is like giving lockpicks to and encouraging someone to break into someone's home and then crying "squatter's rights" when the owner tries to remove the trespasser.

HeadSet says

Do not throw a phony moral equvilency here.

Oh come off it. Your tangerine messiah is out there flouting court orders and sending people to gulags without due process. Dont try to claim moral high ground.

DeficitHawk says

Due process is simply to have an outside party check the facts, and compare them to our laws. As you say, the facts themselves are typically not hard verify.

Do you have any doubt that Maryland man is a criminal gang member criminal alien?

Onvacation says

DeficitHawk says

Due process is simply to have an outside party check the facts, and compare them to our laws. As you say, the facts themselves are typically not hard verify.

Do you have any doubt that Maryland man is a criminal gang member criminal alien?

Yes, because I have doubt this was checked and verified by someone other than an administration I dont trust.

everyone keeps repeating this type of question... "If it is apparent to the arresting officer or ICE officer, why do we need any judges involved?" This is craziness!!

yawaraf says

@DeficitHawk,

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

Me too. I really want to understand people who seem rational but have, what I consider, irrational views.
Convince us of the error of our ways.

Onvacation says

Convince us of the error of our ways.

do you agree people should get due process? that is the crux of the question here. Its not about whether htis individual should be deported or not.

Do you agree with giving people due process?

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-update-statue-of-liberty-to-say-give-me-your-wife-beaters

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-says-no-evidence-demon-horned-man-with-sith-tattoos-and-red-lightsaber-a-member-of-the-sith

DeficitHawk says

Do you agree with giving people due process?

World should go back to old days style, shoot at sight if no official documents were found and start whatever "due process" he or anyone wanted to start.
Perhaps that would be very quick and efficient also help many illegals who is counting on "due process" assuming which is equivalent to citizenship;)

.

get the Democrat candidate for Virginia governor's race to comment on this and MS 13

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/05/04/virginia-prison-la-mara-salvatrucha-attack/83447260007/

.

Patrick says

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-says-no-evidence-demon-horned-man-with-sith-tattoos-and-red-lightsaber-a-member-of-the-sith

The irony... Trump actually believed the letters MS13 were on the guys hand.. he was totally fooled/confused by his own teams photoshop job. Or he was just lying. My interpretation was he was fooled/confused.

DeficitHawk says

Do you agree with giving people due process?

yep. But I don't think that is your motive or you would be more concerned about peaceful J6 protesters being thrown in the DC Gulag without trial than you are with an illegal alien criminal gang member being sent home. But you're not,

yawaraf says

Finally, why are we, American citizens expected to submit to the law but illegal aliens are exempt?

They are not exempt from the law, and they are not exempt from due process.

The law is that people who have a credible threat of persecution in their home country are not to be deported, even if they arrived in the us illegally. That is literally the law, enacted by congress. Thats why the judge ordered what they did.

Onvacation says

yep. But I don't think that is your motive or you would be more concerned about peaceful J6 protesters being thrown in the DC Gulag without trial than you are with an illegal alien criminal gang member being sent home. But you're not,

Back to this whataboutism, and again questioning my motives. You don't have to trust me. Thats fine.

Lets finish this topic. If you agree that people should get due process... then should THIS 'maryland man' we are discussing get due process?

AD says

.

get the Democrat candidate for Virginia governor's race to comment on this and MS 13

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/05/04/virginia-prison-la-mara-salvatrucha-attack/83447260007/

.

Yes, Abrego Garcia had status granted in 2019 by a federal judge to not be deported to his home country of El Salvador. He was arrested in March 2025 while driving home from work by immigration agents, and he has a work permit to make him a documented worker in the USA.

During or after his 2019 immigration hearing, there was a police informant stating Abrego Garcia was a gang member. There is no other information on this, and the allegations may lack evidence and/or credibility.

.

.

DeficitHawk says

PeopleUnited says

Trump shut the border without Congress.

Thats good. I support stopping illegal border crossings.

Okay, so you admit he was here illegally. Should Kamala Harris be put in jail for allowing illegal crossings? They happen, but she allowed it. How about Joe Biden? How about hundreds of billions laundered to Ukraine the last 4 years basically?

I simply don't care about one guy here illegally probably getting money off the $73k in taxes I paid in 2024. He didn't pay a dime in Federal taxes. We have laws and I follow them. I literally cannot be arrested or jailed. Due process isn't needed if you follow laws. He's also not held to the same standard as a citizen is.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal#:~:text=Any%20noncitizen%20who%20entered%20without,that%20they%20are%20inadmissible%20for

Lack of Judicial Review

Individuals placed in expedited removal generally have no right to challenge their deportation in federal court, thanks to jurisdiction-stripping provisions in the 1996 law which created the process. This means that even where an immigration officer acted unlawfully in issuing an order of expedited removal, a noncitizen is severely restricted in their ability to challenge that decision. Individuals may only bring a lawsuit challenging their expedited removal order if they are a lawful permanent resident, or someone already determined to be a refugee or granted asylum, who has been wrongfully subject to expedited removal. In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld this law, finding that it did not violate the right to habeas corpus or due process.

Expedited removal has become a bedrock of the United States’ processing of noncitizens, particularly at our southern border. Procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that the process does not result in the removal of people—particularly those seeking protection—contrary to United States law and international obligations.

Note how they hide this at the bottom of the page. They know that no one will read everything. He was here illegally. Whatever job he got they should be sued. He attacked his girlfriend or spouse and it was reported. There is no due process needed. They expedited his ass out of here legally.

As Kulak said he can just try to get back in from El Salvador. This guy was likely going kill that woman at some point. These aren't the types we want in this country. If an illegal hits my widowed sister. They're dead. He's lucky to be going back to El Salvador and thanking the gods there was no family member around willing to step up for her and off his ass. With my family it would not end well. That's how my due process works.

WookieMan says

Due process isn't needed if you follow laws

WookieMan says

That's how my due process works.

I mean... I dont know what to say to this. Clearly we aren't going to agree on this topic.

The president has the right and discretion to set enforcement priority for immigration. He can decide to target various categories of illegal immigrants for enforcement. He can decide to prioritize immigrants with criminal records, which I think is totally reasonable. Or he can decide to go for whomever is easiest to locate easily. Those decisions are at the discretion of the president and his administration.

But the enforcement priorities and tactics have to comply with our laws (including asylum laws) and our constitution (including the 5th amendment.) "Arriving" immigrants are treated differently from "Already here" immigrants, and 'Arriving" immigrants can be turned away and denied entry without full due process. "Already here" immigrants get due process before deportation. Border enforcement to prevent "arriving" immigrants is more efficient than removal of "already here" people for this reason. Deportation can not be selectively enforced as a threat against free speech or other protected rights (that not relevant to this case, but throwing it out there because I suspect it will be relevant soon).

Those are our laws and our constitution. Im not making it up.

The 'maryland man' guy is by all definitions one of the 'already here' people who is entitled due process. He gets to go to court, judge decides and gives an order, administration needs to follow the order. Simple as that.

Anyone saying otherwise is promoting unamerican principles and compromising our core values.

As for why Trump is doing this type of thing, knowing full well that it is illegal and unconstitutional? I will offer my take: I dont think its because he is stupid, and I don't think he misunderstands the constitution. I think he is an excellent showman, and knows how to work the cameras and find messaging that resonates with his supporters like the many of the people on Patnet. He is creating a spectacle where he can blame and vilify the 'other side' for why he cant do what he wants rather than trying to do the right thing. He hasn't even tried to make this right because the spectacle IS his objective. The outrage you echo in this echo chamber in support of his actions IS his objective.

DeficitHawk says

Do you agree with giving people due process?

@DeficitHawk

"People"?

US citizens are entitled to due process.

Invaders are entitled to be shot at the border.