President Donald Trump recently suggested that illegal aliens should be sent back to their countries of origin without hearings and the years of litigation that often follow.
width="1" height="1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0">
He branded the current process , which permits illegal aliens to repeatedly contest orders of removal, as “a mockery to good immigration policy and law and order.”
The mainstream media wasted no time in characterizing his suggestion as a “ push to end due process for illegal immigrants.” And multiple news outlets made all manner of wild claims about the so-called rights of illegal aliens. But once again, in an effort to portray the chief executive as a xenophobe, the open-borders lobby has gotten its facts backward.
Trump is actually right on the mark. Much of the current legal framework for removing illegal aliens from the United States consists of badly reasoned federal district-court decisions, ridiculous settlement agreements, and politically motivated policy decisions.
The open-borders lobby and its handmaidens in the mainstream media have consistently represented this hodgepodge as a clear articulation of “affirmative rights.” But that representation is misleading.
Illegal aliens are entitled to considerably less immigration due process than their advocates would have us believe.
And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years:
It is not within the province of the courts to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. "As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law." ( Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. ; Hilton v. Merritt )
"It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe." ( Ekiu v. United States )
The United States need only provide an alien with a judicial trial when charging them with a crime and seeking a punitive sentence. ( Wong Wing v. United States )
"Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien." ( Knauff v. Shaughnessy )
Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as non-immigrants, or otherwise. ( Kleindienst v. Mandel )
What does this all mean? That foreign nationals outside our borders are not owed any due process whatsoever. The United States may exclude them at will. It also means that illegal aliens apprehended within the United States are entitled only to such due process as Congress accords them.
Congress could act to streamline their removal and provide the type of no-hearing framework that the president has suggested. In fact, it has already done so for certain classes of aliens:
Using a process called administrative removal, the government may, without any hearing, remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony.
Similarly, aliens found inadmissible to the United States upon arriving at the border may be repatriated without a hearing, employing a process called expedited removal.
Aliens who re-enter the U.S. after having been previously deported may also be removed without a hearing, utilizing a process called reinstatement of removal.
What about all of those asylum applications that illegal aliens supposedly have a right to file? As the Supreme Court made clear in INS v. Cardoza Fonseca , asylum is a discretionary form of relief. The United States is not obligated to grant asylum to anyone, even those who clearly qualify for it.
Because of this, Congress could pass legislation prohibiting those unlawfully present in the U.S. from filing asylum applications.
Far from "pushing to abolish due process for illegal aliens," Trump is posing a legitimate question. It's time for Americans to start asking just how many of our precious tax dollars should be spent providing illegal aliens with expensive immigration hearings to which they are clearly not entitled.
Matt O'Brien is the former chief of the national security division within the fraud-detection and national-security directorate at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS). He has also served as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s assistant chief counsel in the New York District. He is currently director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Progressives love to create/expand rights and this is one they'd love to make universal!
Throw them all out!
So... If Congress just needs to pass legislation prohibiting those unlawfully present in the U.S. from filing asylum applications why haven't they? Hasn't the GOP controlled both houses for the last 8 years? Seems so simple.
Yes, it does seem simple. I see that you omitted the fact that over the decades, Democrats also had good runs in controlling both congressional chambers, but you didn't ask why they did nothing about illegal immigration.
You need 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate!!!
Obama said he would never sign such legislation.
Did he refuse to sign the legislation that Congress submitted on this? Can you provide a link so I can read the bill Congress submitted to him?
The SCOTUS emphatically said otherwise, We all have due process rights in the US legal system, regardless of citizenship status.
The key word there is "IN".
As is opposed to what the article is saying:
"That foreign nationals outside our borders are not owed any due process whatsoever. The United States may exclude them at will. It also means that illegal aliens apprehended within the United States are entitled only to such due process as Congress accords them."
If these people are accused of illegal immigration then obviously they must be in the US and being detained by the US government at the time of their indictment of said crime. If suspected terrorists being held in Gitmo have due process rights then so do illegal immigrants. The Bill of Rights, with only a few exceptions (2nd amendment), apply to all people who are in the US, regardless of their citizenship status. The Bill of Rights exists to limit the power of the government and to preserve our rights, so why do you and other conservatives desire to weaken those inherent rights and set a dangerous legal precedent that can be used against us? What do you lose by mandating that these suspected illegal immigrants have due process rights? The fact that you claim to be freedom loving Americans and patriots when you do this only make your actions more hypocritical.
Are you really that confused?
I just pointed out very specifically in post #1.3.1 - foreign nationals outside the country
Remember the travel ban? The foreign nationals who had not yet boarded a plane in any of those listed countries ARE NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHTS YOU KEEP RECITING!
GOT IT?
If they are already in the country then they have due process rights before they are sent away. Why would they have US Constitutional due process rights if they were not in then US and have not committed a crime?
They wouldn't nor would they have any right to enter the country if a President puts a travel ban on their country. It only took a Supreme Court ruling to drive that obvious point home to a few lower courts and a bunch of liberal activists. I hope we all got it now!
Gitmo is unique, it is leased property so does not qualify as "in the United States", that is why there is so much controversy about it. If the prisoners are moved to American prisons, they would all suddenly have Constitutional rights. This is why the use Gitmo and other black prisons sites hosted by other countries are used for torture and "enhanced interrogation", it would be illegal on American soil.
Actually giving these Illegals hearings has just been a Policy decision based on the Liberal Idea that they had a right to their day in Court, Congress never passed a Law that gave them this Right. This means the President has the Authority to unilaterally change this Policy for all Illegals no matter how long they've been in the Country. Also "As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law." means that any claims for asylum or claim that they are a legal resident of some sort can be handled by the same Immigration Agency handling the Deportation, there is no need to involve the Courts at all since the Immigration Agencies decisions on these cases are the only "due process of law" to which Illegal Immigrants have any Right.
"United States is not obligated to grant asylum to anyone, even those who clearly qualify for it"
That needs to be the policy, they don't just get to come here
I don’t understand what the author is actually saying. He lists Supreme Court cases that say illegal aliens aren’t entitled to due process or perhaps that any process they receive is all the process they’re due. Okay. And he says that any bad policy decision can be undone. Okay. But are the “badly reasoned federal district court decisions” and “ridiculous settlement agreements” still in effect? If they are, then I assume that Trump would have to seek some kind of modification and then appeal if the court denies his request rather than simply ignore court orders and settlements.
Trump hasn’t done anything yet or, as far as I know, even seriously explored it as an option. All he did was mention it at a rally as though he’s looking for audience feedback before he does anything. If the audience applauds, then he’ll do it? It almost sounds like he’s testing legal issues like audience testing a movie in a preview. Maybe all he’s doing is testing a campaign issue for the fall elections to see if he can find something that excites his base like — I’ll get rid of the rigamarole and turn MS-13 around at the border while Nancy Pelosi does nothing.
Your article doesn't define "noncitizens". It doesn't distinguish between ILLEGAL non-citizens and LEGAL visa holders/permanent resident non-citizens. There's a big difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL.
You weren't supposed to read all that and apply common sense things like definitions. Actions like that will trigger somebody.
Oops, my bad!
Pretty sure that illegal alien qualifies as a non-citizen.
Like who?
LEGAL visa and LEGAL permanent resident are also non-citizens and that was the point I made. They have far more RIGHTS based on the fact that they entered the USA LEGALLY and provided DOCUMENTS to the US government.
Time to stop the BS.
I've heard people say that in every group there is the idiot and if you don't know who it is, then it's you. Apply that.
If you have to ask...
What the trump administration is doing now is kicking people out of the Army and the forces. People that wanted to serve and get citizenship. They are now discharging them before they can finish so they can deport them.
Link to a article on this Ender...
If they are going to do this my suggestion is that the phony, wrap themselves in a flag and tell us what patriots they are, be drafted to take their place. Afghanistan is nice this time of year.
.
HA!
LOL
Lol! There should be a giant condom representing Trump's personal Vietnam of avoiding STDs too!
The headline is very misleading.
"Supreme Court Says Foreign Nationals Have No Due Process Rights Here"
This is a false statement as proved by the article itself.
"What does this all mean? That foreign nationals outside our borders are not owed any due process whatsoever. The United States may exclude them at will. It also means that illegal aliens apprehended within the United States are entitled only to such due process as Congress accords them."
All the court cases they list either deal with foreigners outside the US or specifically say "need only provide an alien with a judicial trial". That's called "due process". So any undocumented immigrant found on our soil is in fact entitled to due process.
The source says it all: " LifeZette is a conservative American news, opinion, and commentary website. It was founded in 2015 by political commentator Laura Ingraham and businessman Peter Anthony".
Just more right wing misinformation and deception from a useless right wing website.
Isn't ingraham the idiot that said the detention centers were like kids going to summer camp?
I wonder if she would willingly send any of her own kids to that 'summer camp' under the same circumstances?
Actually she's the Woman who said that "Liberals are kind of like Herpes".
That kind of ends that question...dosen't it?
And didn't she take on a bully and survive his boycott?
Um-hum!
What a Woman!
So that young man really scares the bejesus out of republicans. And he should. He has more poise and maturity than she does. Do you know how many young voters he has motivated to register? I bet you do!
I'm willing to bet not many
So that young man really scares the bejesus out of republicans.
Not really, it seems one sponsor (A Republican pillow maker) stood right with Ms Ingraham and she not only survived the "boycott", but is now one of the highest rated news shows on the air. You can easily spot that brilliant entrepreneur in his commercials wearing a crucifix, just like the one Ms Ingraham wears.
So, thanks Davey and all those behind you (George Soros etc). Well done!
He has more poise and maturity than she does.
Haha...Not on his best day!
You agree with the article then declare it false?
I don't get it
Regardless of where you stand on the Constitution, children should never have been dragged into this.
Trump since he has taken office has repeatedly asked for hundreds of foreign visas to hire foreign workers at Mar-A-Lago and other Trump properties.
Republicans have turned a blind eye to immigration in every border state where Republicans have been elected over and over and over again in the last 50 years or more. They are solidly red states. So while Republicans glad handed their wealthy donors with a wink and nudge, those politicians turned a blind eye so that wealthy businessmen could hire illegals to save money.
Why isn't ANYONE going after the businesses who hire illegals or going after businesses who seek out foreign workers?
That will never happen especially now, Trump has a global empire and openly seeks to hire foreigners here. The foreign workers Trump publicly acknowledges are the ones he is willing to make public, you can rest assured that throughout America in all of Trump's properties there are foreign workers who are illegals that are not revealed.
Thank you!
Trump since he has taken office has repeatedly asked for hundreds of foreign visas to hire foreign workers at Mar-A-Lago and other Trump properties.
For seasonal work, after which they return home.
Republicans have turned a blind eye to immigration in every border state where Republicans have been elected over and over and over again in the last 50 years or more. They are solidly red states. So while Republicans glad handed their wealthy donors with a wink and nudge, those politicians turned a blind eye so that wealthy businessmen could hire illegals to save money.
True. You only mention the Republican dereliction of duty? What about the democrats and their reasons? They are openly calling for OPEN BORDERS. We all know why FOR VOTES they fully expect for that little favor and for changing the demographics of the country.
So, may I ask, who cares about the immigration problem?
Answer:
Donald J Trump