Post New

Baseball
I started taking my oldest son, Flash, to the ballpark when he was 1. We lived a couple miles from a Single-A team and so, when the weather was good and his nap schedule allowed, I’d throw him in the backpack and take him to a game. In those early years what he liked most about baseball was the permission to stomp and clap and make a lot of noise. We would show up somewhere around the third inning and then leave when he got bored.¹ Sometimes we’d be there for an hour. Sometimes we’d be there for ten minutes.

When he was 4, we stayed to the end of a game for the first time. As the players left the field, Flash was confused. “Baseball is over?” he asked plaintively. I was confused, too, until I realized that from his perspective, baseball was like the ocean: It was always there. We’d show up for games and baseball was happening. We’d leave games and baseball was happening. It had never occurred to him that baseball was a finite event. A thing with a beginning and an end.

I think about that a lot these days.

When Flash was 5, we started playing catch in the front yard.

By the time he was 6, I suspected that his arm was special. He threw the ball exceptionally hard for a small child. The only thing he wanted in life was to play baseball, so we spent hours in the yard, playing catch, every day.

In 2016, he discovered Major League Baseball. Prior to that summer, Flash only knew of baseball as a thing we saw in person. When I revealed that there were levels above our humble Single-A team and that we could watch these Big League clubs on TV, anytime we wanted, he was gobsmacked.

This was the season the Cubs broke the curse and won their first World Series in a century. We watched every pitch of those playoffs together. I’ll never forget Game 7. There was a rain delay and he had fallen asleep. My wife and I woke him when the game resumed. The three of us watched the denouement on an iPad, sprawled across the floor in his bedroom. When Anthony Rizzo caught the final out and stepped on the bag at first, my little boy believed in magic.

It was the happiest I had ever seen him.

I resisted letting Flash play organized ball for a long while.² When he turned 10 I gave in. He landed in our town’s Little League scene like Athena emerging fully-formed from Zeus’s head. In three years of Little League he gave up zero (0) hits. By age 11 he had been pulled onto a travel team. By 12 he was spending so much time at the local indoor facility, where our Single-A team practiced in the off-season, that he knew more adults who were professional baseball players than he knew lawyers.³ To Flash, becoming a ballplayer was just another normal career path. Some people became teachers. Some people went to med school. Some people got picked in the MLB draft.

High school was a challenge for Flash. The school he played for as a freshman wasn’t a good fit. Then he tore his UCL, had surgery, and spent eighteen months rehabbing. He transferred. The new school was a better fit spiritually and academically, but didn’t have a baseball program. So he trained on his own, and played the summer showcase circuits. Two months ago he finished the college-recruiting process and signed with a school he admires. A year from now he’ll be living on campus, playing at the next level.

Flash is older now and has experienced adversity. He no longer believes in magic. He knows that getting picked in the MLB draft is not something that just happens. He understands that baseball will make those decisions for him and that his goal for the next four years is simply to work hard, learn everything he can, and grow into the man he wants to be.

Also, he sees that baseball isn’t the most important thing in life.

Last week a student at the college he’ll be attending was arrested by ICE and disappeared into the system. This is the world into which I am sending my son.

Jonathan Last

What a great read, wrecked by an out of context and irrelevant last sentence.

How do you know the person arrested wasn't an axe murderer?

What a great read, wrecked by an out of context and irrelevant last sentence.

Taking this reflection in isolation…… perhaps.

But read in light of what he continually writes about…… not at all.

How do you know the person arrested wasn't an axe murderer?

How do you know he was?

Presumption of innocence, due process, all that good stuff.

How do you know the person arrested wasn't an axe murderer?

How do you know the person arrested wasn’t a law abiding United States citizen?

What a great read, wrecked by an out of context and irrelevant last sentence.

How do you know the person arrested wasn't an axe murderer?

Because he was "disappeared". If he was an axe murderer, that would be out there because it's newsworthy. He most likely didn't even have tattoos.

He most likely didn't even have tattoos.

Perhaps he had “angry eyes”.

Perhaps he had “angry eyes”.

Well, the most likely explanation is that he was present in the country unlawfully.

I mean, it's possible that's not the case. There are certainly instances where people who are here on valid visas, or under temporary protected status, or parole, or other lawful statuses are also detained for deportation. But it's less likely. ICE is generally detaining people who are here unlawfully.

The big change with ICE is that they're utterly indifferent to whether the unlawfully present people are criminals or not, or whether there is even the least reason why they should be chosen for deportation over the "worst of the worst" that were formerly being prioritized, or whether any humanitarian considerations are taken into account at all. It's not that they've stopped paying attention altogether to whether people have legal authorization to stay here or not.

They're not being careful about this in the early stages - they'll grab lots of people in these raids, and hold onto them for a bit while they check to see their status before moving on. Which is horrible for citizens and lawful aliens to have to go through for no reason, and perhaps even unlawful. But that's not what someone would describe as "disappearing into the ICE system."

What they're not doing, though, is trying to clog up the actual immigration and deportation system with folks that actually aren't present in the country without legal authorization. Not for any beneficent reason, mind you - it's just in their self-interest to try to keep the wrongful detentions at a low-ish level, because those clog up the courts and use up ICE resources at a time when they're under massive pressure to make the unreasonable quotas being set by TPTB. Trying to hold onto a person who is a citizen, or a non-deportable person with status that can't be revoked, is a very low-reward action for them. When the Administration is targeting someone, that might be a different story - but for the bulk folks that are being detained, ICE does have incentives to make sure that they don't keep actual citizens or non-deportable persons in the system for very long.

So while we do not know, and cannot know, the specifics of the person Last is referring to, the most likely explanation is that he was a student who was here unlawfully - someone who would have been allowed to remain under prior administrative policy if he hadn't been doing anything else wrong, very possibly (or even probably) wasn't doing anything else wrong, but was still here unlawfully.

He most likely didn't even have tattoos.


Photoshop can take care of that.

What they're not doing, though, is trying to clog up the actual immigration and deportation system with folks that actually aren't present in the country without legal authorization. Not for any beneficent reason, mind you - it's just in their self-interest to try to keep the wrongful detentions at a low-ish level, because those clog up the courts and use up ICE resources at a time when they're under massive pressure to make the unreasonable quotas being set by TPTB. Trying to hold onto a person who is a citizen, or a non-deportable person with status that can't be revoked, is a very low-reward action for them. When the Administration is targeting someone, that might be a different story - but for the bulk folks that are being detained, ICE does have incentives to make sure that they don't keep actual citizens or non-deportable persons in the system for very long.

Oh my, you're so naive. Do you really buy the Kavanaugh doctrine, that it's all okay because the goons will let people who have the wrong skin color go home immediately if they're not here illegally, "no harm done"? There is more than one purpose to all of this. One of the goals is to intimidate and scare all of us. When you label a whole city as "Democrats, Marxists, left wing lunatics" then everyone is fair game. Everyone needs to be put down, shot with pepper bullets and sprayed with tear gas. Anyone who comes close, who records video, who shouts in protest, is fair game to be arrested and disappeared at least for a while, to have their civil rights trampled at least a little bit, enough to scare them and their friends into never doing it again. The purpose is to bring everyone into submission. Hitler's Gestapo did it all legally too. First they revoked the citizenship of all the Jews, then they could deport them "legally" to concentration camps.

Oh my, you're so naive. Do you really buy the Kavanaugh doctrine, that it's all okay because the goons will let people who have the wrong skin color go home immediately if they're not here illegally, "no harm done"?

No, which is why I went out of my way to point out that this was horrible.

I'm only pointing out that if the person actually "disappeared into ICE limbo," it is pretty likely that they were in the country illegally. Not that it's okay when ICE detains someone briefly without much regard to their actual immigration status - just that if they're detained by ICE for long enough to merit that description, it's pretty likely that they don't have authorization to be in the country legally.

No, which is why I went out of my way to point out that this was horrible.

I'm only pointing out that if the person actually "disappeared into ICE limbo," it is pretty likely that they were in the country illegally. Not that it's okay when ICE detains someone briefly without much regard to their actual immigration status - just that if they're detained by ICE for long enough to merit that description, it's pretty likely that they don't have authorization to be in the country legally.

There are hundreds of citizens who have been abducted and imprisoned illegally, many of them for days, some for weeks. I call that "disappeared into ICE limbo", no contact, no information about their whereabouts, no legal representation, no warrant, no appearance before a judge, then kicked out to the street as if nothing happened. Then there are those who are here legally with a visa or waiver, some who appear before a judge to have their case heard, and are summarily detained, their visa or waiver revoked without reason. Is that legal? It didn't use to be. And among those who are actually undocumented, the vast majority are not criminals. Many of them have family members, spouses and children, who are here legally. They are working law abiding people who live here, and have committed the misdemeanor of entering the country illegally or overstaying their visa. Many of them have legitimate claims for asylum. The number of actual criminals, "gang members, murderers, rapists, drug dealers" is a small minority. They are harder to find because they live their whole lives in the shadows. ICE is not actually going after them. Its true mission is to ethnically cleanse the country. When you add it all up, it's a giant dragnet of illegality, intended to destroy communities, to make America lilly white again - as if it ever was.

There are hundreds of citizens who have been abducted and imprisoned illegally, many of them for days, some for weeks. I call that "disappeared into ICE limbo", no contact, no information about their whereabouts, no legal representation, no warrant, no appearance before a judge, then kicked out to the street as if nothing happened.

Sure, but ICE has detained hundreds of thousands of people over that same time frame. So if you're told that a person has "disappeared into ICE limbo," the most likely scenario - by far - is that they are someone who is present in the country unlawfully. While it is possible that they are instead a citizen, that's a very unlikely scenario.

That in no way is arguing that it is good that ICE detains citizens, rather than being more careful in making sure that only folks for whom detention is legally justified because they lack legal authority to be in the country. It simply means that the overwhelmingly more likely scenario is that the person isn't a citizen, but is in fact a non-citizen without legal status.

Why push back on this? Because Democrats paid a very heavy political price in the last election cycle because they were perceived as indifferent to the problems caused by declining to enforce immigration laws. There is a lot to object to about how immigration laws are being enforced by the current Administration. But it's important to object to the specific horrible things, and not let those objections slide into objecting simply to the fact that immigration laws are being enforced.

The mere fact that a person at Last's son's college was taken in by ICE does not mean that ICE has necessarily done anything illegal or wrong, any more than the fact that someone at the college might have been arrested for something means that the police did anything illegal or wrong. That in no way excuses ICE (or the police) when they do illegal or wrong things. It simply means that ICE and the police are supposed to detain/arrest people, and a lot of the time when they do it there is a valid and justifiable reason - and since most voters tend to support the idea of people being arrested/detained when they're supposed to be, it's not a great strategy for progressive commentators to criticize the mere fact of such detentions without mentioning what ICE might have done wrong in that case. I don't think the Democrats will be helped with a repeat of "Abolish ICE," because while the sentiment might be noble the electorate doesn't want us to have no enforcement, just enforcement without the horrible parts.

Why push back on this? Because Democrats paid a very heavy political price in the last election cycle because they were perceived as indifferent to the problems caused by declining to enforce immigration laws. There is a lot to object to about how immigration laws are being enforced by the current Administration. But it's important to object to the specific horrible things, and not let those objections slide into objecting simply to the fact that immigration laws are being enforced.

Let me just remind you that early in 2024 a bipartisan immigration bill was about to be approved by congress, and candidate Trump vetoed it because he wanted to run on his immigration lies. There's not much Democrats can do to negate the perceptions, just as they couldn't successfully negate the lies about Hillary's emails or the "stolen" 2020 election.

As I noted, ICE is not primarily enforcing immigration laws. They are violating far more laws than they are enforcing. Their primary purpose it to ethnically cleanse the country.

As I noted, ICE is not primarily enforcing immigration laws. They are violating far more laws than they are enforcing.

That's not really something that lends itself to ready measurement...but as I noted above, ICE is detaining literally hundreds of thousands of people annually. So it's almost certainly the case that they are apprehending more people lawfully than they are apprehending more people unlawfully. Whether that means they're violation more laws than they're enforcing is a really unusual questions, but certainly the overwhelming majority of their actual detentions are of people they are lawfully empowered to detain.

the overwhelming majority of their actual detentions are of people they are lawfully empowered to detain.

They use unlawful means to detain and deport people, whether or not those people are here lawfully. Every person in the United States, no matter their immigration status, has the same civil rights, including the right of Habeas Corpus. If a judge has not issued a deportation order for a person, they have a right to be represented and to appear before a judge before being deported.

ICE's main missions are to scare and intimidate, and to ethnically cleanse the country. Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWAwo4iux9g

I'm only pointing out that if the person actually "disappeared into ICE limbo," it is pretty likely that they were in the country illegally

I've seen no transparency with respect to who is being arrested,detained, deported. Son desaparecidos!

Djibouti? Uganda? What happened to them there? Forced labor till they died? Where's the paperwork? FOIA only works when lawful records are kept.

As I've written before, for all we know, some could have been loaded into C130s and walked off the ramp over open ocean.

Prove me wrong.

Its true mission is to ethnically cleanse the country. When you add it all up, it's a giant dragnet of illegality, intended to destroy communities, to make America lilly white again - as if it ever was.

----------------

Fantasy.... Running up your blood pleasure over a false speculation.

Let me just remind you that early in 2024 a bipartisan immigration bill was about to be approved by congress, and candidate Trump vetoed it because he wanted to run on his immigration lies. - elann

----------------

That bill was poorly designed and was mainly intended to provide cover for the open border calamity Biden allowed and encouraged as thousands of non vetted immigrants poured into our country every day.

And let me just remind you that no new legislation was necessary to stop it. as Trump showed us.

As I've written before, for all we know, some could have been loaded into C130s and walked off the ramp over open ocean.

Prove me wrong. - sano

----------------

I believe the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

If a judge has not issued a deportation order for a person, they have a right to be represented and to appear before a judge before being deported.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has held (by a 7-2 vote) that expedited removal proceedings without a judicial hearing are constitutional, and do not violate the Suspension Clause relating to Habeas Corpus:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161...

Deportation is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one.

Nor, BTW, does your point negate my original contention. ICE hasn't stopped having deportation hearings. The regular order of deporting detainees who already have a deportation order and taking detainees to hearing to get a deportation order appears, by all accounts, to be continuing. The exceptions are notable because they are exceptions - instances where ICE is (wrongfully!) playing games with procedure to try to avoid ending up in front of a judge, and such instances almost always end up in front of a judge anyway (witness Kilmar Abrego). But again, the overwhelming majority of detainees are just going through the regular process.

Unless you have some reason to think that ICE isn't doing this - that they're using expedited removal regularly in situations where a hearing is required?

As I've written before, for all we know, some could have been loaded into C130s and walked off the ramp over open ocean.

Prove me wrong.

"Some" could have. But enough for that to be the more likely outcome? Not a chance that could be happening. With hundreds of thousands of detentions and deportations, there's no way that ICE could be having most of them doing that.

"Prove me wrong"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden's on the person making the claim that ICE is illegally executing hundreds of thousands of people with no one finding out about it, when it's actually much easier for them in nearly all cases to just send the people back to their country of origin.

I believe the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and refuses to provide evidence of whether it is a duck or not.... it's probably a good bet to treat the damned thing as a duck until it proves otherwise.

"Prove me wrong"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Prove me wrong" was a ploy Charlie Kirk regularly used when arguing with college students,
I believe the poster is using it as tongue in cheek homage.

I believe the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, = bill

------------------

Has anyone see it walk, has anyone heard it quack?

So your analysis is, "If you can imagine it, it's probably a good bet to treat the damned thing as a duck until it proves otherwise."

Has anyone see it walk, has anyone heard it quack?

Only if they have eyes and ears.

So your analysis is, "If you can imagine it, it's probably a good bet to treat the damned thing as a duck until it proves otherwise."

Nope.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has held (by a 7-2 vote) that expedited removal proceedings without a judicial hearing are constitutional, and do not violate the Suspension Clause relating to Habeas Corpus:

So that was a Sri Lankan 25 yards inside the border, who claimed to have fear because he was Tamil. If we judge that being Tamil is not enough to warrant asylum in the United States we can just insert him back across the border after taking fingerprints, etc., I assume. I think under the old pre-Trump rules we were doing this to around 15% of the people at the border who either didn't claim fear, or we judged their fear to not be asylum worthy. So this ruling in 2020 seems to affirm what was going on before, am I correct in read it that way? Ask AI! Voila!

AI Overview

No, the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam did not affirm existing precedent. Instead, it significantly narrowed the scope of judicial review for asylum seekers at the border, overturning a lower court ruling and departing from how some scholars and legal advocates interpreted the law. The ruling limited the rights of individuals subjected to "expedited removal"—a process that allows immigration officials to quickly deport people apprehended near the border without proper documentation.

How the ruling changed the legal landscape

Limited the availability of habeas corpus: The Supreme Court found that a habeas corpus petition, which typically secures release from unlawful detention, could not be used by Thuraissigiam to obtain a new asylum hearing. The Court ruled that seeking additional administrative review fell outside the traditional understanding of the writ of habeas corpus as it existed when the Constitution was ratified.

Rejected due process rights for recent border crossers: For immigrants seeking initial entry, the Court reaffirmed longstanding precedent that their procedural rights are limited to what Congress provides by statute. The ruling expanded this principle by treating Thuraissigiam, who had crossed 25 yards into U.S. territory, "as if stopped at the border," and thus not entitled to greater due process protections.
Overturned the Ninth Circuit's decision: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in Thuraissigiam's favor, finding that the statutory limit on judicial review for expedited removals was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, affirming Congress's authority to limit such review.

Reinterpreted previous cases: The majority opinion reinterpreted prior rulings, such as INS v. St. Cyr, to argue they only confirmed that immigrants could challenge unlawful detention—not seek additional administrative relief through habeas corpus. This was seen by some as a restrictive reinterpretation of the Suspension Clause.

The consequences of the decision

For asylum seekers, the decision significantly reduced oversight of the expedited removal process, which critics noted was already susceptible to error. The ruling cemented the government's ability to limit judicial involvement in these cases, leaving non-citizens with fewer avenues to challenge their deportation orders.

If we judge that being Tamil is not enough to warrant asylum in the United States we can just insert him back across the border after taking fingerprints, etc., I assume.

Yes, but the operative terms in the sentence above are the "we" who will "judge" whether being Tamil is not enough to warrant asylum.

The plaintiff argued that since he was physically present in the United States, he was entitled to a hearing on whether he qualified for asylum. That the "we" couldn't just be ICE or Border Patrol or an LEO, but it had to be a judge (whether administrative or Article III) who would afford him an opportunity, governed by due process, to submit evidence on whether his situation warranted asylum.

And the Court said, "Nope." Congress has provided that you can be deported without a hearing, and the Constitution doesn't require one.

Immigration advocates want Thuraissigiam to be read as limited to border encounters, but the basis of the opinion doesn't support that. The Court held that Habeas Corpus offers judicial review (and relief) from unlawful detention - from being imprisoned or held in custody. It doesn't grant a right to judicial review of your asylum claims. IOW, you can assert that the government doesn't have a legal basis for detaining you, but the Suspension Clause doesn't mean they have to give you a hearing on whether or not you can be deported. That analysis isn't limited to the border.

Under Thuraissigiam a person who is detained as unlawfully present in the country could seek a habeus corpus writ challenging their detention....but like the petitioner in that case, that is an empty effort. If you're present without authorization in the country, the government has the right to detain you. The detention isn't unlawful. You never had the right to enter the country, and you never acquired the right to be at liberty within the country. As noted in the opinion, even if you are paroled into the county and live for years in the U.S., you are still legally treated as though you were an applicant for admission at the border - and until such admission is legally granted, you can be detained indefinitely.

That bill was poorly designed and was mainly intended to provide cover for the open border calamity Biden allowed and encouraged as thousands of non vetted immigrants poured into our country every day.

And let me just remind you that no new legislation was necessary to stop it. as Trump showed us.

Amazing. There are still people on this board who want to cling to the fantasy immigration bill.

We were 100% right, they were 100% wrong. Again. And they can't face it.

The plaintiff argued that since he was physically present in the United States, he was entitled to a hearing on whether he qualified for asylum. That the "we" couldn't just be ICE or Border Patrol or an LEO, but it had to be a judge (whether administrative or Article III) who would afford him an opportunity, governed by due process, to submit evidence on whether his situation warranted asylum.

Yah, I'd like them to have that chance, but I'd rather they remain in Mexico. It looks like the Mexican border became too dangerous for remain in Mexico though, and we were taking to long, which would have been helped by the unpassed bill that Mike disparages, even though a similar bill was passed a year later.

And let me just remind you that no new legislation was necessary to stop it. as Trump showed us.

Amazing. There are still people on this board who want to cling to the fantasy immigration bill.

We were 100% right, they were 100% wrong. Again. And they can't face it.

Yes, it's been hard to see the guardrails vaporize, and the courts side with flimsy pretexts to allow uses of the military and National Guard previously considered verboten. It's all been so easy. And we have more than 3 years left.

Congress has provided that you can be deported without a hearing, and the Constitution doesn't require one.

That is the position of this administration, but is that really correct? The Constitution doesn't specify "citizens" in the 5th or 14th. It -as I understand it- applies to the Federal with respect to the individual, wherever that individual is or who he/she is. Is that not correct?

I know "due process" is a little squishier, as it isn't really defined (to my knowledge). But it does require some sort of process that includes review. Yes?

Yes, it's been hard to see the guardrails vaporize, and the courts side with flimsy pretexts to allow uses of the military and National Guard previously considered verboten. It's all been so easy. And we have more than 3 years left.

As I understand it, there are numerous injunctions and pending court cases. So, to claim "no legislation was necessary" isn't really accurate. There's a good chance a lot of the cases will go against the administration (many already have). If you're OK with your elected officials engaging in illegal actions, I guess it's all good. No telling how much of it will have to be unwound after the cases work their way through the courts. The unwinding will be difficult, and those caught-up prior to the unwinding will have suffered great injustice. MAGA doesn't care, of course. At least not until that injustice touches them. Then they'll scream.

Legislation would circumvent all of that, and has the added bonus of being the proper way to do it.

I believe the poster is using <prove me wrong> as tongue in cheek homage.

Thank dog somebody can suss out stuff. Thank you.

The C130 quip was intentionally hyperbolic... but then we just got hit with a huge 50%? tariff/tax because Trump is pissed that his soul-mate Bolsonaro was convicted in Argentina; a country that DID show numerous people to the airborne door after Peron was deposed.

<"As The Guardian reported in 2004, the dictatorship would carry out its six-year reign of terror with the explicit and surreptitious support of the U.S. government. "If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly," Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Argentine foreign minister after the coup. "We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better."
Lt. Scilingo led the crew of two death flights that left from a Buenos Aires military airport in the summer of 1977. He said that the prisoners were told they were going to be transferred to concentration camps elsewhere in the country and needed to be vaccinated. But the "vaccine" they were given was actually a sedative that rendered them nearly unable to walk.Once on the plane, they were given another sedative that completely knocked them out, and then they were stripped naked. The crew flew them out over the ocean, where they knew the currents would most likely carry the bodies out to sea, and threw the victims out of the plane. "I personally threw them out," said Scilingo, who added that at one point he almost fell out of the plane himself. To this day he is haunted by the possibility, stating that he often envisions himself plummeting into the cold depths of the Atlantic.">

Read More: https://www.grunge.com/305154/the-truth-behind-ado...

More than a few social media commenting MAGA have endorsed death flights for those they perceive to be woke/commie/lib/democrat. So...hyperbolic? We're dealing with anonymous masked thugs who enjoy shooting people in the face with pepper balls and get their rocks off terrorizing people.

How many got deportees flying lessons? Does it really matter? How many is acceptable to our Republic?

What would be worse; a painless death by impact with the ocean, versus <"the deportees will enjoy “workforce training, health care and accommodation”> AKA torture and forced labor in Djibouti, South Sudan, Uganda or Eswatini...those paragons of human rights

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/23/what-w...

https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeTikToks/comments/1o...

That is the position of this administration, but is that really correct? The Constitution doesn't specify "citizens" in the 5th or 14th. It -as I understand it- applies to the Federal with respect to the individual, wherever that individual is or who he/she is. Is that not correct?

I know "due process" is a little squishier, as it isn't really defined (to my knowledge). But it does require some sort of process that includes review. Yes?

No.

You're correct that the due process you're entitled to in many cases not a person vs. citizen question, or an issue of where the person is. For example, before the government can convict someone of a crime and put them in jail, they have to be given a trial. It doesn't matter whether the accused is a citizen, legal visa-holder, or undocumented. The nature of the dispute - in this case, the government trying to convict you of a crime and put you in jail - means you're entitled to the process that is due to that proceeding.

In the case of immigration, though, the question is one that doesn't give rise to much due process - and arguably none at all. Because the issue is whether a person should be admitted to the country. And the Court's precedent is that Congress has absolute and plenary authority to answer that question however they want. They can just say "no" - they don't have to give a reason, they don't have to set up criteria, they don't have to give you a hearing. Unlike being imprisoned for a crime, no one is entitled to a hearing over whether they should be granted permission to enter the country. Ever.

And the Court has said that doesn't change whether the person is has already physically entered the country in advance of getting permission to enter the country. If you haven't been granted entry to come in, that question remains utterly at the discretion of the federal government - and they are under no obligation to give you any level of process for resolving disputes over it.

They can choose to - and most past Administrations did give hearings to folks to challenge a lot of claims that weren't required to be adjudicated. But they don't have to. Not because of who the person is, but because of the nature of the privilege at issue.

As I understand it, there are numerous injunctions and pending court cases. So, to claim "no legislation was necessary" isn't really accurate

Tell them. I've expressed before that if we got 80% of the rulings to go our direction, we were OK. We're being beaten at the USSC, doing better at the lower courts. But watching the guard rails go down is tough. It doesn't look favorable to me. Per AI

Supreme Court

Emergency Docket: the Trump administration has had a notable success rate, winning almost three times more often than other applicants seeking emergency relief.
Merits Docket: Rulings on cases that proceed through the normal appeal process have been less consistently in favor of the administration, with many cases splitting along ideological lines.

Lower Courts

Deregulatory Cases: A significant portion of the administration's deregulatory efforts have been blocked or withdrawn in lower courts, with success rates around 11% in some analyses, reports The Washington Post and CNBC.
Agency Action Cases: The administration's success rate in cases involving challenges to agency action has been around 22%, a much lower rate than the typical administration's 70% win rate, according to the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law and ABC News.
Federal Spending Cases: An analysis of lawsuits over federal spending showed that courts had temporarily blocked the administration's decisions in 66 of 152 cases.

Sure. And arresting people at their mandatory court check ins is evidence of this perfectly lawful ICE behavior.

Dude, this rightward vote seeking behavior is how Clinton destroyed America and paved the way for republican rule today.

“the issue is whether a person should be admitted to the country. And the Court's precedent is that Congress has absolute and plenary authority to answer that question however they want. They can just say "no"

This only applies to asylum seekers who have registered. Visa over stayers or border crossers would have to be detained and have their lack of legal residency status proven before deportation. In other words, habeas corpus would apply. If not, the American citizens are likely being deported.

This only applies to asylum seekers who have registered. Visa over stayers or border crossers would have to be detained and have their lack of legal residency status proven before deportation. In other words, habeas corpus would apply.

That's certainly wrong when it comes to border crossers - the SCOTUS case cited upthread was someone who crossed the border, and SCOTUS held that habeas corpus was not available to challenge deportation. I believe the same logic would apply to over-stayers.

That's because the central holding of the ruling is that habeas is available only to challenge detention - not decisions on whether someone should be deported or not. If the detention isn't unlawful, there's no basis for a habeas writ.

Habeas would be available to U.S. citizens being wrongfully detained, of course. In fact, requesting habeas would be available to anyone who was being wrongfully detained. The problem for most folks that are being detained by ICE (even when they're apprehended at their court dates) is that they're not being wrongfully detained, so they'd never get a writ - or even a hearing on a writ, because they wouldn't be able to plead a prima facie case in their petition. If you're present in the country without legal authorization, you can be lawfully detained, with relatively few limitations. Because you're unlawfully present in the country. Very few undocumented folks were detained, because past Administrations elected not to detain them - after all, it's expensive to keep someone detained, and it's much cheaper to just let them do what they will while they're waiting for deportation.

That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has held (by a 7-2 vote) that expedited removal proceedings without a judicial hearing are constitutional, and do not violate the Suspension Clause relating to Habeas Corpus:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161...

As I understand that ruling, it says that once a person has been adjudicated, by a judge, to have no legitimate claim for asylum, no further proceeding is needed to actually deport him.

The exceptions are notable because they are exceptions - instances where ICE is (wrongfully!) playing games with procedure to try to avoid ending up in front of a judge, and such instances almost always end up in front of a judge anyway (witness Kilmar Abrego).

Indeed Kilmar Abrego is an exception because enough publicity was generated and legal representation offered in his case. There have been no more than a handful of Kilmar's, and for every one of them there have been a hundred thousand who have been illegally abducted and put in concentration camps, to be put on planes and disappeared from this country, treated like convicted criminals without anything resembling a "civil proceeding", because they couldn't generate the same publicity and legal support. They couldn't even make a phone call to tell their family they are being deported.

Its true mission is to ethnically cleanse the country. When you add it all up, it's a giant dragnet of illegality, intended to destroy communities, to make America lilly white again - as if it ever was.

----------------

Fantasy.... Running up your blood pleasure over a false speculation.

So all the white christian racists, from JD Vance through Charlie Kirk and on down the line, talking about the "great replacement theory" is just fantasy. Right. Fine people carrying Tiki torches, anyone?

As I understand that ruling, it says that once a person has been adjudicated, by a judge, to have no legitimate claim for asylum, no further proceeding is needed to actually deport him.

That's not entirely correct. It holds that habeas corpus is not available to challenge deportation - altogether - and that the individual does not get a standard removal hearing or judge-issued deportation order.

You had originally suggested that:

If a judge has not issued a deportation order for a person, they have a right to be represented and to appear before a judge before being deported.

....and that's what Thuraissigiam rejects. There was no deportation order by a judge, just a credible fear determination that was denied three times. The deportation determination is made by the asylum officer, not a judge. The individual does not get a removal hearing.

....and that's what Thuraissigiam rejects. There was no deportation order by a judge, just a credible fear determination that was denied three times. The deportation determination is made by the asylum officer, not a judge. The individual does not get a removal hearing.

To clarify, since I think I've wound a bunch of disparate things together, the last review of the credible fear determination is made by an immigration judge - so that aspect of the process goes before a judge. But there's no removal hearing, and the removal order is the one issued by the administrative officer. The detainee doesn't get to have the "standard" removal hearing, just a review of the credible fear determination alone. And habeas is never available.

To clarify, since I think I've wound a bunch of disparate things together, the last review of the credible fear determination is made by an immigration judge - so that aspect of the process goes before a judge. But there's no removal hearing, and the removal order is the one issued by the administrative officer. The detainee doesn't get to have the "standard" removal hearing, just a review of the credible fear determination alone. And habeas is never available.

Thanks for this, it cleared up my question about the judge.

One last question Albaby. In prior discussions it seemed we were obligated to consider asylum applicants by the Geneva Convention and we were hoping we could get that covered by an Administrator, which now seems to be the case. Is each country left to have its own interpretation of how to apply that convention. is there a vague outline, or... whatever? It seems an administrative determination is fine, but for those who have been here for 20 years.. makes me unhappy.

And let me just remind you that no new legislation was necessary to stop it. as Trump showed us.

Sure. Trump showed us that he’s a lawless dictator.

Post New

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.