Supreme Court halts latest wave of Alien Enemies Act deportations, for now

[The_Reader_David]

No one is being deprived life, liberty, or property.  No one.

Really?  Perhaps the fellow deported to El Salvador, despite having legal status (you can argue it was dubiously attained, but he had it), on the claim that he was a gang member (substantiated only by administrative courts denying him bail) would disagree about not being deprived of liberty.

[DCPatriot]

Obviously the "person" is a legal citizen of the US... otherwise with super wide interpretation as you used. This would apply to people in other countries that we have no authorization over.

Exactly, the manner of interpretation shared at this end.   

However our Declaration of Independence states..."all men are created equal".  Not 'all citizens', so I'm having a bit of conflict here. 

[The_Reader_David]

Obviously the "person" is a legal citizen of the US... otherwise with super wide interpretation as you used. This would apply to people in other countries that we have no authorization over.

Had the Founders meant citizen, they would have written "citizen".  They did not, they wrote "person".  As to its application to people in other countries, seeing that the United States seems to think our laws apply extraterritorially to people like Manuel Noriega and Julian Assange, I'm not sure who these "people in other countries that we have not authorization over" would be. 

[roamer_1]

Obviously the "person" is a legal citizen of the US... otherwise with super wide interpretation as you used. This would apply to people in other countries that we have no authorization over.

But wait a minute friend... Wouldn't that mean that illegal aliens could be shot on sight... that illegal females could be raped without recourse... Could be sold into slavery and forced to serve?

No. Law is law, and at some point must be applied to the person, regardless.

Don't get me wrong. I stand in general agreement with you, but @The_Reader_David 's point cannot be swept aside.

There must be the meanest (poorest) form of constitutional protection, even for the illegal alien. What that should be, outside of full rights has not been quantified herein.

Perhaps they should be treated in the same fashion as military combatants under military code - with a way to declare/request asylum somewhere along the way.

But even in that, I think they should be treated humanely, and have some form of representation - Remember a good share of them are here because our government has let them, with a wink and a nod... The process of reversing that should probably have some guidelines. And that, in absence of what law would proscribe, must needs fall upon the courts, I think.

And in that, the culprit is again, a worthless Congress.

[MeganC]

@kevindavis007

@MeganC




Yes, nothing says “checks and balances” like demanding the courts shut up and do what they're told. I’m sure Madison is doing cartwheels in his grave.

Tell me: What can't the courts do?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Had the Founders meant citizen, they would have written "citizen".  They did not, they wrote "person". 

It mentions it now in the 14th Amendment passed in 1868.

[DCPatriot]

They entered the country without due process!

Why do they deserve due process
for us to send them back?!

[roamer_1]

They entered the country without due process!

Why do they deserve due process
for us to send them back?!

Send them back WHERE? Finding that out is part of due process. There is interest in treating them criminally, and in that due process IS the process. That is how they are ID'd, fingerprinted, interviewed to determine where they are from,  wants and warrants, etc, etc...

[Right_in_Virginia]

However our Declaration of Independence states..."all men are created equal".  Not 'all citizens', so I'm having a bit of conflict here. 

Our Declaration of Independence is nothing close to law, it is a declaration of war. @DCPatriot

Should a citizen of another country be afforded all rights, privileges and protections of a citizen of the United States -- even those whose first act is to knowingly break our laws upon entering our territory?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Send them back WHERE? Finding that out is part of due process.

No it's not.  We owe no guarantee whatsoever that they'll be returned to Grandma or a place of their choosing.

[DCPatriot]

Our Declaration of Independence is nothing close to law, it is a declaration of war. @DCPatriot

Should a citizen of another country be afforded all rights, privileges and protections of a citizen of the United States -- even those whose first act is to knowingly break our laws upon entering our territory?

@Right_in_Virginia

No!  As I posted in a later reply #56 here.  

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

No!  As I posted in a later reply #56 here.  

 

[DCPatriot]

Send them back WHERE? Finding that out is part of due process. There is interest in treating them criminally, and in that due process IS the process. That is how they are ID'd, fingerprinted, interviewed to determine where they are from,  wants and warrants, etc, etc...

@roamer_1

LOL!

I'm thinking of all the movies and pilot episodes that begin with prisoners escorted to the exits thru electronic gates and doors to the parking lot or sidewalks with just the clothes on their backs. 

Anything more than that will tie up our court systems for a decade...which IMO, is the RAT plan all along!

[roamer_1]

No it's not.  We owe no guarantee whatsoever that they'll be returned to Grandma or a place of their choosing.

So what? You thimk you can pack em all in cattle cars and send em back to Mexico?

[rustynail]

Some should read The Camp of the Saints.  We could be 'due processed' out of our country..

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

LOL!

I'm thinking of all the movies and pilot episodes that begin with prisoners escorted to the exits thru electronic gates and doors to the parking lot or sidewalks with just the clothes on their backs. 

Anything more than that will tie up our court systems for a decade...which IMO, is the RAT plan all along!

You don't get it @DCPatriot ... in order to send them, that means a destination. That means a positive ID, and clearances from the accepting nation... passport. That's all part of due process.

[DCPatriot]

You don't get it @DCPatriot ... in order to send them, that means a destination. That means a positive ID, and clearances from the accepting nation... passport. That's all part of due process.

NO, @roamer_1   YOU don't get it.

You take them to an border entry point and push them thru the ...gate...door...hatch...booth...whatever.

With nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Let Canada or Mexico deal with them.  And that includes those flown in here from Asian countries by the DEMS in the middle of the night.

[cato potatoe]

You don't get it @DCPatriot ... in order to send them, that means a destination. That means a positive ID, and clearances from the accepting nation... passport. That's all part of due process.

Our modern notion of due process will not allow for 20 million illegals to be deported.  The system we have is not working, and it will not work.  It needs to be adapted. 

Republicans could try.  They could eliminate the filibuster and expand the court system, fund detention centers, facilitate the transportation, etc.  One judge after another would shoot it down.  The ACLU is committed to the destruction of American society, and will devote every resource it has towards that end. 

The only way this gets done is if Trump follows the lead of Eisenhower.  I’m sure the lolbertarians will crow about “muh freedom” but there is pretty much zero chance the people who drafted the Bill of Rights would have tolerated a third world invasion of this magnitude, and would have taken care of matters in their own way. 

[cato potatoe]

Alito blasts 'unprecedented' SCOTUS move

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-blasts-unprecedented-scotus-move-halt-trumps-venezuelan-deportations-legally-questionable

[Hoodat]

Really?  Perhaps the fellow deported to El Salvador, despite having legal status (you can argue it was dubiously attained, but he had it), on the claim that he was a gang member (substantiated only by administrative courts denying him bail) would disagree about not being deprived of liberty.

It is beyond the jurisdiction of the United States to guarantee liberty outside our borders.  We are not the ones depriving Abrego Garcia of his liberty.  We are simply deporting him back to his home country because he does not have a legal right to reside in the United States.  It really is that simple.

[Hoodat]

Don't get me wrong. I stand in general agreement with you, but @The_Reader_David 's point cannot be swept aside.

There must be the meanest (poorest) form of constitutional protection, even for the illegal alien. What that should be, outside of full rights has not been quantified herein.

Perhaps they should be treated in the same fashion as military combatants under military code - with a way to declare/request asylum somewhere along the way.

In 2019, Garcia was brought before an immigration judge.  He has resided illegally within the US for a period of eight years.  At no time during those eight years did he apply for asylum.  Based on those facts alone, he is eligible for deportation.  "Due process" was already served.  It matters not that he beat his wife.  It matters not that he was/is a member of MS-13.  It matters not that he was caught smuggling illegals in the last few years.  All that matters is that he is in this country illegally, his request for asylum seven years after the deadline expired, and that deportation was authorized (except to El Salvador).

No, he doesn't get a do-over.  He doesn't get special consideration because some Maryland politician has a man-crush on him.  He gets deported because he broke the law entering the country and continue to live here illegally for fourteen years.  He already had his day in court.

[Hoodat]

Our modern notion of due process will not allow for 20 million illegals to be deported.

I disagree.  Arrest 20 million.  Hold them in jail while they await their 'due process' hearing.  If any have been deported before, then charge them and begin prosecution proceedings (2-year sentence).  It's not that difficult.

Sure, it make take years before they get their hearing.  But the fact that they are here illegally in the first place should be cause enough to keep them locked up until their hearings come up.

[Hoodat]

You don't get it @DCPatriot ... in order to send them, that means a destination. That means a positive ID, and clearances from the accepting nation... passport. That's all part of due process.

The best part of building a wall is that you then have something to throw them over.

But yes, there has to be a nation willing to receive.  El Salvador is one of those nations.

[cato potatoe]

I disagree.  Arrest 20 million.  Hold them in jail while they await their 'due process' hearing.  If any have been deported before, then charge them and begin prosecution proceedings (2-year sentence).  It's not that difficult.

Sure, it make take years before they get their hearing.  But the fact that they are here illegally in the first place should be cause enough to keep them locked up until their hearings come up.

Where are you going to store 20 million people, while the ACLU spends years trying to get them all released?  There isn’t enough prison space for ten percent of that.  The annual cost of federal incarceration is $45,000.  Multiplied by 20 million is 900 billion dollars per year. 

[MeganC]

Where are you going to store 20 million people, while the ACLU spends years trying to get them all released?  There isn’t enough prison space for ten percent of that.  The annual cost of federal incarceration is $45,000.  Multiplied by 20 million is 900 billion dollars per year.

The ACLU will go bankrupt trying to defend 20m invaders. Good.

[roamer_1]

NO, @roamer_1   YOU don't get it.

You take them to an border entry point and push them thru the ...gate...door...hatch...booth...whatever.

With nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Let Canada or Mexico deal with them.  And that includes those flown in here from Asian countries by the DEMS in the middle of the night.

No, YOU don't get it. That's not how it works. MEXICANS you can throw back at Mexico. You can throw CANADIANS, and maybe Brits back to Canada. Anything else, without some sort of agreement is ILLEGAL.

[roamer_1]

Our modern notion of due process will not allow for 20 million illegals to be deported.  The system we have is not working, and it will not work.  It needs to be adapted.

That is not true as Tumpy's first term demonstrated. Close the border and enforce the law - Not only will that work, it would be hugely popular. And that is ALL that needs done. That is all that has ever needed done.

And any other way is doom. Illegal actions are DOOM. They will be stopped all too soon. And he does not have the time to do anymore.

And what he is doing WILL fail... Because he has so little time and so little political support. He will have no legacy, and all he is doing now will revert to norm when his left boot heel crosses the threshold at the White House for the last time.

THE ONLY thing that will work and last must be legal and supported. He will be shut off from any other thing. So while you LIKE what he's doing, in the end it will prove to be flailing and poorly rendered.

[roamer_1]

No, he doesn't get a do-over.  He doesn't get special consideration because some Maryland politician has a man-crush on him.  He gets deported because he broke the law entering the country and continue to live here illegally for fourteen years.  He already had his day in court.

He is a moot point. He is already in El Salvador and under El Salvadoran jurisdiction - Imprisoned there, I take it.

The point is whether it was lawful according to the court. And whether the Administration stands against a lawful order. Personally, I think it is much ado about nothing, because the deportation had already passed beyond US hands. El Salvador has no obligation to obey a US judge, and the guy was already convicted there, so that is his end.

So all this drama will end of its own weight without any need to be unlawful. Such stupefying drama. What a clusterfck.

[The_Reader_David]

It is beyond the jurisdiction of the United States to guarantee liberty outside our borders.  We are not the ones depriving Abrego Garcia of his liberty.  We are simply deporting him back to his home country because he does not have a legal right to reside in the United States.  It really is that simple.

He is only outside our borders because he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law while in our borders and shipped there.

[The_Reader_David]

They entered the country without due process!

Why do they deserve due process
for us to send them back?!

Due process of law -- like everything else in the Constitution -- is a limitation on the government's treatment of people (and juridical persons), not on people's actions.  Duly passed laws are limits on people (or on the government), but the Fifth Amendment's reference to due process of law applies to what the government may do to you (or to the bloke who just crossed the Rio Grande), not what you (or he) may do.

[Right_in_Virginia]

He is only outside our borders because he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law while in our borders and shipped there.

Nope @The_Reader_David

Van Holland's "Maryland man" has received due process, twice, from two different judges since 2019 and found both times not to be here legally, likely MS13 and okay to deport --- but has gone on to beat the deportation system along with beating his wife and has been so active with his MS13 tribe that he's become a suspect in human trafficking.

[roamer_1]

Due process of law -- like everything else in the Constitution -- is a limitation on the government's treatment of people (and juridical persons), not on people's actions.  Duly passed laws are limits on people (or on the government), but the Fifth Amendment's reference to due process of law applies to what the government may do to you (or to the bloke who just crossed the Rio Grande), not what you (or he) may do.

Exactly spot on.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

He is only outside our borders because he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law while in our borders and shipped there.

So what?  He is outside our borders and our laws,  period.

Did you have such a consternation of how J6 American citizens were treated or those victims criminally treated, even raped or killed, by these illegal thugs?

[berdie]

Due process of law -- like everything else in the Constitution -- is a limitation on the government's treatment of people (and juridical persons), not on people's actions.  Duly passed laws are limits on people (or on the government), but the Fifth Amendment's reference to due process of law applies to what the government may do to you (or to the bloke who just crossed the Rio Grande), not what you (or he) may do.

Agreed. Although I like expediency and going thru the courts maybe tedious, it will remove any doubt or protest. (Or publicity stunt)

So the answer to me is...change the law for removal of illegals. I'm sure Ike didn't deal with the cumbersome process and it is something that has occurred since the '50s

[Bigun]

Agreed. Although I like expediency and going thru the courts maybe tedious, it will remove any doubt or protest. (Or publicity stunt)

So the answer to me is...change the law for removal of illegals. I'm sure Ike didn't deal with the cumbersome process and it is something that has occurred since the '50s

If someone illegally enters MY house he's going to get immediate due process I can assure you!

[roamer_1]

So the answer to me is...change the law for removal of illegals. I'm sure Ike didn't deal with the cumbersome process and it is something that has occurred since the '50s

There it is. And I draw your attention once again to the true culprit, and the true way forward - A Congress, jealous of its powers.

All this messin around counts for naught - 4 years from right now, right back where we were. You need something for 40 years. Not 4.
And that is Congress. That is the whole battle. A political machine that can get Conservatives elected to congress that will last a generation. A way of thinking, FROM THE PEOPLE, carried forth in their duly elected representatives, accordingly, passed down to our sons and their sons.

There is no quick fix. This is all a big waste of time and money.

[berdie]

If someone illegally enters MY house he's going to get immediate due process I can assure you!

We do have castle protection laws in Tx.

However, it appears that we are going to enact a whole new set of laws for "squatters". Much like the illegal protections that need to be repealed. Crazy world we're living in ain't it?

[berdie]

There it is. And I draw your attention once again to the true culprit, and the true way forward - A Congress, jealous of its powers.

All this messin around counts for naught - 4 years from right now, right back where we were. You need something for 40 years. Not 4.
And that is Congress. That is the whole battle. A political machine that can get Conservatives elected to congress that will last a generation. A way of thinking, FROM THE PEOPLE, carried forth in their duly elected representatives, accordingly, passed down to our sons and their sons.

There is no quick fix. This is all a big waste of time and money.

That is the sad truth. Congress is so busy with "investigations" and trying to look like they are doing something...that they don't do jack that could actually benefit the country long term.

[DefiantMassRINO]

[Sighlass]

But wait a minute friend... Wouldn't that mean that illegal aliens could be shot on sight... that illegal females could be raped without recourse... Could be sold into slavery and forced to serve?

No. Law is law, and at some point must be applied to the person, regardless.

Sorry Roamer, but the law would still apply to those deporting them (US citizens) that they can't rape and pillage humans. That would cover the treatment of illegals in custody as citizens we don't have the right to commit those acts already to anyone.

[roamer_1]

Sorry Roamer, but the law would still apply to those deporting them (US citizens) that they can't rape and pillage humans. That would cover the treatment of illegals in custody as citizens we don't have the right to commit those acts already to anyone.

That's not the point - The point is, how would you know of their mistreatment (or not) if there is no trial? There is processing involved in 'due process' that is the sole guarantee that our LEOs are doing their job right. That's the thing that goes missing when you are loading em in cattle cars.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Could we deport them as Alien Climate Felons for expelling CO₂ and methane?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Had the Founders meant citizen, they would have written "citizen".  They did not, they wrote "person".  As to its application to people in other countries, seeing that the United States seems to think our laws apply extraterritorially to people like Manuel Noriega and Julian Assange, I'm not sure who these "people in other countries that we have not authorization over" would be.

Here's an inconvenient truth for certain members on this board

The U.S. Constitution is a contract
By Matthew G. Andersson
President Trump is getting a lot of unwarranted media criticism for stating that he isn’t a lawyer who can give a formal constitutional law opinion on due process for illegal border crossers.

His administration rightfully seeks to deport them. 

But even for the progressive Left, it might be fair to give President Trump some benefit of the doubt: the Constitution’s meaning may not be readily apparent even, or especially, to lawyers, and otherwise hinges on one word. 

Both the 5th and 14th Amendments refer to “persons” including in due process.  But what does “person” mean?  Moreover, what exactly is a due process?

The definition of a person, is in the Constitution’s Preamble which is crucial to constantly reference when the rest of the Constitution is read.

“We the People,” is followed by the prepositional phrase “of the United States,” which technically creates belonging. Those who belong also declare an intent to reinforce their belonging by creating a “more perfect union.”   This makes persons those who have entered into a perfected contract with a corporation called the United States. 

Those persons then empower representatives who act on their behalf, through elections.  Voting in elections is a right reserved constitutionally, for citizens.  Persons, therefore, refers to citizens who have given themselves rights as specific persons in their own constitution (preceded by a Declaration that created separateness from others). 

Even if you assert that the Amendments are a separate Bill of Rights, those were originally written to actually reinforce allegiance to the Constitution for the anti-federalists, and some must also be referenced to their specific context in slavery emancipation. The 14th Amendment converted what was then deemed legal human property under U.S. contract, into contract freedom.  Strictly speaking, illegal immigrants are not in any contract relationship in U.S. law, which can then be converted into a release from obligation.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/05/the_u_s_constitution_is_a_contract.html

[MeganC]

If someone illegally enters MY house he's going to get immediate due process I can assure you!

 

[roamer_1]

Here's an inconvenient truth for certain members on this board


Persons, therefore, refers to citizens who have given themselves rights as specific persons in their own constitution (preceded by a Declaration that created separateness from others). 

Strictly speaking, illegal immigrants are not in any contract relationship in U.S. law,
which can then be converted into a release from obligation.

Right. Except the Constitution obliges itself to the Declaration of Independence, which declares all men created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain and unalienable rights.

There is a place where those natural rights cross with extensible rights prescribed to citizens under the Constitution, within its jurisdiction and without.

I will give as an example, prisoners of war, which exist in a theater of war, beyond the technical jurisdictional boundaries of the US. Still these prisoners are granted certain rights under military code, which can in fact be interceded by the judicial branch, if those rights are abraded without satisfaction, by military code.

I agree that rights enumerated by the Constitution technically belong to citizens. But Natural Rights belong to every Man, as we affirm in the DoI, which must be true or our very founding is at fault. And while I do agree to that bifurcation, others might adjure that the enumerated rights of the Constitution are extensible from the DoI. There is an argument there.

Whichever the case, Natural Rights (as defined by Natural Law for this argument) remain. And if those Natural Rights have been offended, there must be a means of investigating that offense. By its nature, in the American case, that means is some form of Due Process. And that due process is rightly protected, one would suppose, by both Military code and Civil Justice, with the Civil court, in the end, within its aegis, above all in its duty to protect those rights, by way of that process (whatever that might entail)... That is its very purpose.

[Smokin Joe]

You think we should be like El Salvador, Hungary, or Russia? Pick your favorite facist country and move there!

Fascist countries don't deport--they imprison or execute.

The Constitution was written by and for Americans. These people are invaders who are here illegally. Right in the preamble, the Constitution states the purpose of providing for the common defense. Let's defend already, and remove those who have stormed the borders, aided by traitors.

[Smokin Joe]

Spare me the red herring. Only 10% of our labor force is unionized, so the likelihood of your bloviated scenario is pretty nil. But you have a mind of a frat boy so no surprise.

If you want super cheap stuff, slave labor is the way to do it. You have no problem with the Chinese doing it, so why not move it over here and save transportation costs?

Pick your own damned cotton. We have enough mess from that episode in our history, a corpse that will not stay buried.

[Smokin Joe]

I think you should all remember that the actual text of the Fifth Amendment includes,

"... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

(emphasis added).

Notice, person, not citizen. 

It is for this reason that the courts are correct in their intervention against Trump's deportations which were proceeding without due process of law.  If we cease to be a government of laws rather than of men, liberty is lost whether it is Biden or Trump or Trump's successsor from whichever party who is casting aside legal niceties.  Everyone on this board ('Rat trolls excepted) was horrified by Obama and Biden abolishing due process for male college students accused of sexual misconduct.  The same horror should apply to abolishing due process for people accused of being in the US illegally, or of being members of some Latin American gang.

If you extend them the 14th, why not the Second? We've been invaded by 20 million foreigners, who can arm their army at their leisure if we extend the Rights of our Constitution to those who have come here illegally.

[cato potatoe]

So the answer to me is...change the law for removal of illegals. I'm sure Ike didn't deal with the cumbersome process and it is something that has occurred since the '50s

The law will not change unless the filibuster is removed.  Ike ignored “due process,”  just as every predecessor of Eisenhower would have if hordes of illegals were swarming into the states from Central and South America.  30 million cases would take decades to resolve.  It simply will not happen.  There is already a 4 million case backlog. 

[GtHawk]

Fascist countries don't deport--they imprison or execute.

The Constitution was written by and for Americans. These people are invaders who are here illegally. Right in the preamble, the Constitution states the purpose of providing for the common defense. Let's defend already, and remove those who have stormed the borders, aided by traitors.

Is this asshat @kevindavis007 (should be double naught-naught) still around because I am curious why he thinks Hungary is a fascist nation, because they have long memories and won’ allow moslem invaders to take over their country again?