The court system has been obstructing the Trump administration’s attempts to deport various classes of undocumented migrants who are here in the U.S. One might imagine that making a deportation decision would be a simple process. A migrant who lacks either a visa or a green card is ineligible for U.S. residence and, therefore, he/she/ze/they can be deported. Because, however, any migrant is entitled to make an asylum claim, e.g., as Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia did in 2019 (eight years after illegally entering the U.S.). At that point, some folks reasonably argue that “due process” requires U.S. government workers to determine whether the tale told by the asylum-seeker is true (see Federal government weighs in on a 15-year-old pupusa dispute (Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia)). It’s unclear why anyone thinks truth determination is possible. Only one side of the story is available, i.e., from the migrant who stands to gain four generations of a work-optional lifestyle (entitlement to public housing, Medicaid, SNAP/EBT, and Obamaphone). It’s an absurd farce in which the winners are those with the best acting skills, but it’s guaranteed to be an expensive farce with hundreds or thousands of hours invested by lawyers on all sides (government, migrant, judges) for each migrant whose status is determined. Other than high fees, the one thing all of these lawyers will have in common: none will have any clue about what actually happened on the other side of the world 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.
(Another farcical element is that nothing stops a Salvadoran from claiming that El Salvador, 20X safer than Baltimore or Washington, D.C., is too dangerous and that therefore he needs to live right here in the country where most of the most violent Salvadorans now reside.)
How did we get to the point that every migrant who strolls across the border can impose a $1 million cost in legal fees on the U.S. taxpayer? Professor of Constitutional Law Dr. ChatGPT, JD, PhD explains that we can thank the noblest of all U.S. Presidents, Jimmy Carter:
The premise of the asylum framework seems to be that Earth is generally too dangerous to be occupied by humans with the exception of the United States, which is the only safe place. World population in 1950 was about 2.5 billion people and 4.4 billion in 1980. Today, despite the fact that almost every country is officially deemed too dangerous to inhabit, the human population is somewhere between 8 and 10 billion (nobody knows).
Republicans have control of Congress right now. Instead of these constant fights with the courts regarding whether anyone can be deported, wouldn’t it make more sense for Trump to ask Congress to repeal the Refugee Act of 1980 and pass a new law that says “The United States does not offer temporary or permanent residence on the basis of an asylum claim and, in fact, does not offer asylum. It is a shame that various countries at various times have problems, but Americans hope that people who live in those countries will cooperate to work out their problems.” Asylum-seekers wouldn’t be disadvantaged by such a change because anyone who wants to seek asylum can do so in Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, etc.
Loosely related… (source)
Not gonna happen. Trump or other politicians can ramble all they want, but the current economy depends on cheap labor. So, despite bombastic sloganeering, no one really wants to go beyond token gestures.
Isn’t cheap labor the same as slavery? If we agree, could this this mean in 50 years, those cheap workers call for reparations, similar to those being discussed today in the context of black slavery? If that ever happens, I hope the U.S. has enough $$ to pay those illegal migrant cheap labors, because they out number the slavery we had back in 1700’s or 1800’s.
Talk is cheap, I believe when I see the actions and results. Trump and other politicians(both parties) do not want to fix the issue. For republicans this a great time to repeal the Refugee Act of 1980 as majority of Americans support this and they have majority in both chambers. May be some of the senate democrats will join to repeal. If not then it is on them . Also Refugees are very small portion of overall illegal immigration issue. Trump promised to deport 11 mil and i am still waiting to see what would be the final no. my guess is it will less than what Obama did.
Democrats would then sue on the premise the US was not complying with treaty obligations. Starting in the 20th century there is significant precedent for unilateral abrogation by Presidents, but that alone would not do the trick as the law would still be in place. So Trump should abrogate the treaty and congress should repeal the law.
As to the requirement for cheap labor being necessary, there are levels of automation coming in the next 10 years, or less, that will destroy the unskilled/semi-skilled labor market. Best to get migrants out before they become a large, unemployable, permanent underclass.
“Best to get migrants out before they become a large, unemployable, permanent underclass.”
Just like the…errr…uumm…aahhh…never mind.
Anon: “the US was not complying with treaty obligations”? To the extent that the U.S. is a sovereign nation, the U.S. is free to withdraw from treaties at any time. The U.S. isn’t even a party to the “treaty about treaties” (see https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm : “Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.”)
You could argue that the U.S. surrendered its sovereignty some years ago by opening its border, I guess. But if you believe that we’re sovereign we have the right to stop granting asylum, I think.
In 1980 most refugees were escaping communism.
Today, refugees are brought in to bolster communism.
Even though Democrats in senate will filibuster, Republicans out to try. And change US legal immigration as well.
The President can suspend habeas corpus in emergencies. Congress had full power over immigration after 1808. The former caveat is preceded by the latter stipulation in Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constutution, so there is a sequential connection.
If Congress repealed the Refugee Act of 1980 would the fight over migrants between the Trump administration and the court system end? yes!
We shouldn’t demand due process for the benefit of the migrants, we must demand it for the benefit of *citizens*. If the government is allowed to do *something* without due process, then it can do *anything* without due process because due process is the only check that the government is staying within the allowed powers.
Liberals have bungled the f*ck out of this issue because they focus on the migrant sob story, but limited government power used to be a core conservative issue. You don’t have to give a sh!t about migrants, this power can be used on YOU.
Phil, your suggestion that we legally end the asylum farce is the perfect conservative response on this issue, but you pollute the issue by promoting the BabylonBee’s culture war meme headlines. Yes, they’re funny and not entirely without merit, but they undermine the very real stakes here.
Would you be satisfied by anything less than bringing Lance Ito out of retirement to PERSONALLY preside over a 13-month reenactment of the OJ Simpson trail for EACH AND EVERY illegal gang member’s deportation?
Non-citizens are not entitled to the same due process as citizens.
Democrat Clinton championed legislative reforms to expedite deportations by reducing the amount of burdensome process involved:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-07-mn-63503-story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996
Immigration “judges” are Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) and are part of the executive branch. They are not Article III judges and can be overruled by POTUS.
If I entered a country illegally, or even if I entered legally on a temporary visa, I would understand that the country could kick me out at any time and wouldn’t object to it.
Faucian Bargain, your bad faith straw-manning of my post and points about differences between migrants and citizens are irrelevant. I could not have been clearer in my original post that I am not concerned with the welfare of migrants. My understanding that that *whatever* due process is due migrants, they did not receive. The unanimous Supreme Court verdict seems to me to confirm this. If the administration experiences no consequences for failing to follow due process in one case we should expect them to make no effort to do so in others. Citizens should self-interestedly care about this issue.
AnonZ: I didn’t mean to be offering an opinion on “due process” (a fine term, but likely one that has completely different meanings to different people) nor on the bizarre recent events around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia that are tied to the bizarre ruling by a judge that he could be deported anywhere but to El Salvador. To the extent that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s life story relates to the original post it is the 2019 part where he avoided immediate deportation by claiming asylum.
I do think that it would be cleaner if the U.S. government got an immigration judge to update the previous ruling and say “now that El Salvador is much safer than Maryland/DC, Mr. Abrego Garcia CAN Be deported there”. I’m not sure what would happen if El Salvador let Mr. Abrego Garcia join Sen. Van Hollen and other Democrat climate change alarmists on a private jet back to Maryland. Would Mr. Abrego Garcia even want to go to the U.S.? As soon as he arrived, ICE could pick him out of the passport line and deport him to Panama or some other country that we’re paying to accept our deportees. This would be in perfect conformance with the 6 years of “due process” that Mr. Abrego Garcia received.
The term “due process” has become over loaded and polluted, thanks to the Woke and Liberals.
Take David DePape, the individual who attacked Paul Pelosi, husband of Nancy Pelosi. When law enforcement arrived at the Pelosi mansion, they did not conduct a “due process” hearing on the spot, in Pelosi’s mansion. The intruder was immediately moved to a holding cell where his “due process” was carried out quickly.
So why is it controversial to expect a similar approach when someone enters the U.S. illegally? They should be taken to a holding cell (no less than prison), and unless they have solid evidence that their life is in danger from their HOME-GOVERNMENT, they must be returned. What is so hard not to understand about this?
If Liberals insist on “due process” for illegal migrant, then let the “due process” take place in their own mansion, at their own expenses, and with ankle monitors to the illegals to make sure they stay foot.
a long long time ago when I went to the USA for the first time, on the plane people were given cards with questions such as
Will you commit crimes in the US? (YES) (NO)
Were you a perpetrator of the holocaust? (YES) (NO)
…
At first people thought them to be a joke, but the flight attendants did insist it was serious (it was not rare for people who had taken it as a joke to be refused entry). The generally accepted explanation was that by stating we were not going to commit crimes on US soil, were were basically accepting immediate deportation, no appeal available, had we been found guilty of a crime at the lowest court hearing.
It is not obvious why you do not just rejig the law so that once people have been found in breach of whatever condition they lose appeal rights ipso facto. This way you have both due process, and an expedited way of expelling people deemed worthy of expulsion.
When I lived in London a long long time ago, I lived in a part of the city with a large Kurdish community, originally from Turkey. They were all refugees, despite going back from Turkey on holiday as soon as they secured UK citizenship. Most of them had productive jobs, so they were not necessarily a burden to society, but they did make a mockery of the spirit of ‘giving refuge to the oppressed’.