Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

As far as due process, when someone breaks in and makes their self at home in your dwelling, do you wait for a judge to tell you that you can remove them before kicking them out? Why should the country be any different. They don't deserver due process, they are not here legally to begin with.

Because the nation is a system of laws and institutions that spell out what to do with illegal immigrants. If illegality negated due process than there would be no point to our legal system. 

What about enforcing the LAW?

What does the law say about crossing our borders illegally?

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

8 U.S.C. sec. 1325 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325)

No where in our law could I find the clause that says to round up everyone Latino with "gang" tattoos and ship them out of the country without a deportation hearing.  

Ugh. For about a 2 year period, one of our cars seemed to never get charged for any use of the local toll road system. I didn't abuse that (nor even use it much), only really on times I would have used it even if the charges would have been processed, but the fact that we weren't getting charged was a nice little benefit. Then mid-2024 I used the toll road and was charged, so I figured the party was over. 

Well, on Thursday there was a sudden $146.50 charge... Didn't know why (although I suspected it might be the latent non-charges were discovered), and contacted the Toll Roads company. And today I got the transaction history of everything that posted, and indeed it lines up with the days I used that car on the toll roads. Basically 2 years of toll road usage all dinged at once. 

Damn. I was hoping this was just free usage that would never be found. 

15-20 might be a little steep but the point stands immigration process was circumnavigated and lawful backround checks disregarded

15-20 might be a little steep but the point stands immigration process was circumnavigated and lawful backround checks disregarded

Might be a little light too. We'll never know.

Anyway,


Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station | Babylon Bee

What about enforcing the LAW?

What does the law say about crossing our borders illegally?

It probably says there’s a due process that should be followed, if for nothing else to make sure the government is doing things competently and correctly. 

People here got very cross when the government looked into their finances. There were accusations of their incompetence. So if a group that incompetent is grabbing folks and sending them to South American slave labor prisons, probably not the worst to make them show their work. 

ICE is incompetent?? 

They seem competent, now that they are allowed to do their jobs.

What about enforcing the LAW?

What does the law say about crossing our borders illegally?

The Court didn't say they can't enforce the law. It said the government needs to comply with its Constitutional obligations when enforcing the law.

Take the politics out of it for a second. The government arrests 847Badgerfan and moves to deport him. 847Badgerfan thinks they have the wrong 847Badgerfan, or he didn't do what the government arrested him for, or he's a citizen. 847Badgerfan has the right to go to court to try to stop the deportation. Now, the government can keep 847Badgerfan detained while this is going on; it just can't deport him prior to the government proving its case. Mind you, the case for deportation is a low bar for the government. (1) The government has to show the person is not an authorized resident. If not, (2) the defendant has to prove (not the govermment, the defendant) that the deportation is not authorized for whatever reason (already established under the law). This is the opposite of any criminal procedure where the government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is a lower bar than a plaintiff bringing a civil claim, where the plaintiff has to show he/she is more likely than not correct. Here, the defendant has the burden of proof. This is among the easiest cases for the government from a burden of proof perspective. All the Court said is: government, meet your burden before you deport. That's it.

It is a verifiable fact that the government has deported American citizens because of mistakes. Again, politics aside, surely you don't condone that. The purpose of the judicial process is to avoid those mistakes. So, unless you want the executive to have carte blanche to violate people's rights because of the vibe (as was noted in a post above), it isn't a good thing for the President to be able to ignore a court order.

There are lots of limitations on the courts' powers. Jurisprudence has always recognized that there are certain circumstances when the courts cannot stop the Executive from acting (even if they can later review the Executive's bad actions). War powers are a good example of that. But his deportation is not an exercise of war powers. This is a simple administrative act, wherein the government has the time to properly prove its case. There is no demonstrable harm to meeting the court's burden. It's just a political gripe, nothing more.

I plan to leave this argument after the following:
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers:"
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"

In other words, abuse of individuals at the hand of the executive was a crucial part of our founding. But, that is not the law of the land, this is:
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of greivances."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause..."
"No person* shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."
"In suits at common law...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United State, than according to the rules of common law."
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and ununsal punishments inflicted."

*Person, not citizen.

All of this is to say that we are a nation of laws, built on the fundamental concept that a single person cannot dictate government policy, and certainly cannot dictate how the government acts in relation to the people within its borders. Since Marbury vs. Madison we have agreed that the federal judiciary is the appropriate check on the executive branch's authority. It is not a minor thing for the executive branch to declare that it need not follow a court order because it disagrees with it. That is a breach of the fabric of our constitutional system. So where the harm to the government--keeping these people detained in the U.S. slightly longer--is microscopic, intentionally violating a court order is a really big deal.
If you are correct--these are dangerous criminals that require deportation, the government will have no trouble meeting its burden in court. And if it can't meet its very low burden, then it can't prove its case against them, and they should not be deported. Our system is premised on our government not being able to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without the government meeting its burden. Surely we can all agree on that.