For years there have not been enough immigration judges to handle the volume of cases. And it would take years to remedy that even if there was the political will to do so, which there is not. Not complying with the Constitution is not a palatable option. So ignoring many if not most of those who are already here with meritless claims is the only viable option. Bad outcome certainly. But ignoring the Constitution would be even worse.
it really depends on whether the supreme court deems illegal immigration a national security threat or not. It is not new that national security trumps all parts of the Bill of Rights. So we will have to see how they split the baby sort to speak. I am going to say that the president is going to be allowed to use the existing law to send known criminal illegal aliens out of the country without due process as he is doing now. But if someone is not a criminal other than having crossed the border then they will be entitled to due process. We have seen that the reason SCOTUS is requiring the administration get back certain persons is only because they had already been in judicial proceedings and had immigration orders. OTOH, SCOTUS just ruled that Trump can remove the special designation for Venezuelan asylum seekers and he can then send them back. It did not say anything about them being entitled to individual due process. So it is going to be very interesting
Here’s one question to ponder. If people who committed an actual crime in the U.S. can be deported without a hearing, whereas people whose only crime was crossing the border illegally are entitled to due process, how do we tell which is which without a court hearing? If the government says someone committed a crime and is therefore not entitled to due process, without due process how can they challenge that and say they never committed a crime? And if they can’t, what stops the government from just announcing regarding anyone they want to deport that they’ve committed some crime?
Its not the government saying someone committed a crime, its a court of law. Once you commit a crime in the US and you are not a citizen the government has the right under law to deport you. That many have not been deported is because the Biden admin wasn't deporting criminals the same way they had open borders. And if someone is already under an order of deportation they too do not have to have a due process hearing. Under these circumstances people have already had their due process hearings.
I am saying that I think SCOTUS is going to rule something along this nature.
For years there have not been enough immigration judges to handle the volume of cases. And it would take years to remedy that even if there was the political will to do so, which there is not. Not complying with the Constitution is not a palatable option. So ignoring many if not most of those who are already here with meritless claims is the only viable option. Bad outcome certainly. But ignoring the Constitution would be even worse.
it really depends on whether the supreme court deems illegal immigration a national security threat or not. It is not new that national security trumps all parts of the Bill of Rights. So we will have to see how they split the baby sort to speak. I am going to say that the president is going to be allowed to use the existing law to send known criminal illegal aliens out of the country without due process as he is doing now. But if someone is not a criminal other than having crossed the border then they will be entitled to due process. We have seen that the reason SCOTUS is requiring the administration get back certain persons is only because they had already been in judicial proceedings and had immigration orders. OTOH, SCOTUS just ruled that Trump can remove the special designation for Venezuelan asylum seekers and he can then send them back. It did not say anything about them being entitled to individual due process. So it is going to be very interesting
Here’s one question to ponder. If people who committed an actual crime in the U.S. can be deported without a hearing, whereas people whose only crime was crossing the border illegally are entitled to due process, how do we tell which is which without a court hearing? If the government says someone committed a crime and is therefore not entitled to due process, without due process how can they challenge that and say they never committed a crime? And if they can’t, what stops the government from just announcing regarding anyone they want to deport that they’ve committed some crime?
Its not the government saying someone committed a crime, its a court of law. Once you commit a crime in the US and you are not a citizen the government has the right under law to deport you. That many have not been deported is because the Biden admin wasn't deporting criminals the same way they had open borders. And if someone is already under an order of deportation they too do not have to have a due process hearing. Under these circumstances people have already had their due process hearings.
I am saying that I think SCOTUS is going to rule something along this nature.