Jay Hubbard 1h · Regarding Trump’s many “due process” controversies, part of the reason there’s confusion is that differing legal pathways exist from which to achieve deportation, all of which have different standards, and some of which aren’t subject to due process whatsoever.…
Continued I believe people are mixing the legal standards up or are unaware of them. I also believe the legacy media is demonstrating double standards in pretending these presidential powers aren’t (for the most part) lawful.
Take, for instance, the IIRIRA.
In 1996, congress specifically authorized the executive branch to conduct non-judicial deportations NOT SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS. [a] While one might argue against this on ethical grounds, one cannot argue that the president lacks the authority. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) was passed by Bill Clinton [a], enforced by George W. Bush, and expanded by Barack Obama, with support from both political parties.
PER CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS:
“The expedited removal process, created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, is codified in INA § 235(b)(1).
The statute permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to summarily remove aliens arriving at a designated U.S. port of entry (arriving aliens) WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING OR REVIEW if they are inadmissible either because they (1) lack valid entry documents, or (2) tried to procure their admission into the United States through fraud or misrepresentation. INA § 235(b)(1) also authorizes—but does not require—DHS to extend application of expedited removal to "certain other aliens" inadmissible on the same grounds if they (1) were not admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities and (2) cannot establish at least two years' continuous physical presence in the United States at the time of apprehension.” [a]
To be clear, this wasn’t always the case. As the ACLU wrote back in the Obama administration:
“The deportation system has dramatically changed over the past 19 years – moving from a judicial system prior to 1996, where the vast majority of people facing deportation had immigration court hearings, to a system today of nonjudicial removals, where 75 percent of people removed do not see a judge before being expelled from the U.S. The numbers are staggering: in 1995, 1,400 immigrants were subject to nonjudicial removals, representing 3 percent of total deportations. By FY 2012 that number had sharply increased to 313,000 nonjudicial removals.” [b] So to reiterate, all the way back in 2014, the ACLU specifically cited that 75% of Obama’s deportees had NO DUE PROCESS.
[b] I’m outlining these complaints from the ACLU not necessarily to agree with them nor to disagree with them, but to demonstrate that this presidential power was well established prior to Trump. Unless you were deeply involved in following the ACLU’s advocacy, you likely weren’t aware anyone took issue with it. This - yet again - exposes the legacy media’s double standards. They were silent regarding Obama’s use of non-judicial removals, going so far as to let him classify his administration as “scandal free”[c], yet when Trump’s in office, non-judicial removals become a scandal.
Per the American Immigration Council:
“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. …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.” [d]
The law also made deportation eligibility retroactive and introduced penalties for overstaying visas, including bars on reentry for certain periods. It also made it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to adjust their status, even if they had family members who were US citizens. [e] I’m again pointing this out not to argue for or against it, but merely to demonstrate that these expanded authorities existed prior to Trump. This is not a power grab. His office was granted this authority by democratically elected legislators.
Up until now, I’ve been discussing the 1996 law which allowed expedited removal under Section 235 of the INA. That pivoted away from the usual removal proceedings which were governed under Section 240 of the INA. It’s Section 240 (the usual process) where suspected illegal aliens are afforded a hearing (due process) in front of an immigration judge. [f] If someone doesn’t qualify for expedited removal, only THEN are they entitled to that formal hearing.
That was the case until Trump named some groups “terrorist organizations” while invoking the Alien Enemies Act, however.
When Trump entered office the 2nd time, he designated several globally powerful gangs as terrorist organizations. These massive organized crime networks had been competing with governments around the world for control, often by forcing businesses to pay them “taxes”. They were guilty of human trafficking, drug trafficking, murder, rape, extortion, and racketeering.
This is worth pointing out since the Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act,” also passed in 1996, criminalized the act of providing material support or resources to terrorist organizations [g] and has been argued by the New York Law Review to have encroached on due process. Again, as is the theme of this editorial, I’m not noting this to agree or disagree, only to demonstrate that the power existed before Trump. It was a 1996 law, and formally designating someone as a terrorist means they legally have different entitlements.
As for the Alien Enemies Act? Here, too, exists an authority granted to the presidency by congress in 1798. “It allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation. The law permits the president to target these immigrants WITHOUT A HEARING and based only on their country of birth or citizenship. Although the law was enacted to prevent foreign espionage and sabotage in wartime, it can be — and has been — wielded against immigrants.” [h]
CONCLUSION:
Whether violating the concept of due process concerns you or not, these ARE legal pathways toward deportation. Each case is different, where some were deported under the expedited removal standard, others deported under Section 240, and others deported under the Alien Enemies Act, but these legal pathways were all created by Congress. I won’t deny that the efficacy and morality of all laws are worth debating, but that’s different from legality.
Also, why wasn’t there a national debate on these laws while Biden, Obama, Bush, or Clinton were president? Why now? That they are becoming scandalous NOW despite being barely noticed in prior administrations is a testament to the legacy media’s political bias. It's argued that a rogue President is engaging in an unlawful power grab, but that’s simply false.
These laws existed prior to Trump. These laws were enforced prior to Trump. These powers were democratically granted to the executive branch by Congress. If you don’t like them, fine, petition Congress to change the law, but don’t falsely claim the President is acting unlawfully.
#2
Lawfare is running amock at the federal level. Congress might as well be sleeping with the fishes. Much of what Trump is trying to do is being blocked with the Deep State. That is what is the actual "due process" amounts to nowadays, not the imaginary one.
#3
Lawfare uses any premise or pretense that can be twisted pretzel-like into seemingly illegal behavior headlines for the MSM and the gullible public. Its not the outcome, its the continuum, building like a crescendo into what seems a tidal-wave of illegal behavior. Russia, Russia, Russia was 4 years of smoke and fury, belying nothing, but neutering the first Trump administration in large part. Already, Impeachment has formed on Schumer's lips, proof positive of the danger they face in the months ahead.
This is redux, and its intent is to frustrate Trump ad nauseum, in the end hoping he might actually act, like Lincoln or FDR, and use Constitutional remedy to suspend or circumvent Habeus Corpus and incite real violence, which is already primed in much of the blue cities. The stakes couldn't be higher, as Trump thorough DOGE and now the Act Blue investigation, is striking at the heart of the entire demokrat party apparatus, its life blood money and power.
Congress critters sitting on their arses doing nothing.
No way, Jose. We may all rest assured that every one of them cashes every paycheck they receive, and clutch at every benefit of office within their reach. 564 days until midterm election.
#16
According to a Townhall piece, it was meant to be an Ask Me Anything interaction with voters going in to the debate this week on the hated Republican budget proposal.
Which is fascinating because nothing I saw before that gave the slightest indication that was the intention. I guess it’s one of those If You Know, You Know things, and I didn’t know.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
