Trump Ignores the Courts

[SpaceCoastVol]

Nope. It could get dismissed. But ain’t no way there is a plea deal. This is all about sending a message. The administration wants to make an example of someone

No they don't. Nothing will happen to her.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

So now you're too the point you are defending Trump with guesses, LOL.

Here's a guess....I guess you won't give a **** whatever you find out sbout the details, so why say anything? Just say, "IDC. **** other people. It's not me."

Ironic coming from you

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

This is effectively advocating for dictatorship. Fortunately, you’re likely wrong and this will harden resistance to him.

Yeah, being an officer of the court and following the law is advocating for a dictator. Got it.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

“And a pregnant mother”. I love the idea from that you can’t be deported if you’re pregnant

Hey hey hey... pregnant 'birthing person'.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Do whatever makes you happy. Just realize that most Americans disagree with you.
Keep it up Dems; 2028 gets easier for us every day

The Republicans can still **** this up. Their candidate could be red handed caught on Epstein Island with video and 50 unimpeachable witnesses and the Republicans will do something stupid to get him elected.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[norrislakevol]

But that was different!

 

[Ashevolle]

Respectfully, there are plenty of deportations, maybe the majority, that are done under an expedited process that requires no court appearance. For example, when someone enters this country without proper paperwork authorizing them to be here.

I believe your issue is with the process legally due, rather than the actual lack of said due process.

That is an argument I suggest you take to your legislature, who authorized the lawful deportation process with which you disagree.
Congress is who would fix this, if indeed it needs fixing, not the Executive.

Presumably due process was given here, as there is no articulated violation of the deficiency in following the process cited anywhere.

You presume incorrectly

 

[Ritzwatch]

You presume incorrectly

You do not understand what due process is.

You do not understand the expedited removal process under deportation rules.

Your inability to state what law, specifically, was not followed here, shows ignorance.

Complaining about a process that was duly followed because you do not like that process is not the same as having a process that wasn’t followed.

 

[Majors]

Trolling those who support breaking the law/terrorism.

 

[Majors]

You presume incorrectly

Which deportations by past administrations did you advocate for? Be a thinking man and stop being told what to be upset about. Fake rage isn’t the flex liberals think it is.

 

[n_huffhines]

You do not understand what due process is.

You do not understand the expedited removal process under deportation rules.

Your inability to state what law, specifically, was not followed here, shows ignorance.

Complaining about a process that was duly followed because you do not like that process is not the same as having a process that wasn’t followed.

Can you explain what you're talking about?...because I believe the courts so far have essentially said there is no expediting due process. Yes, Trump can use this 200 year old wartime law to deport these people, but they still get due process. I don't think you know what you're talking about, but I could be wrong. What you got?

 

[Majors]

Can you explain what you're talking about?...because I believe the courts so far have essentially said there is no expediting due process. Yes, Trump can use this 200 year old wartime law to deport these people, but they still get due process. I don't think you know what you're talking about, but I could be wrong. What you got?

Show me you truly don’t care when you say “deport these people”.

Liberals in real time using tolerated racism.

 

[n_huffhines]

I think people need to understand that if some people don't enjoy due process, then nobody is guaranteed due process. If certain groups can be denied due process, then bad actors within the government can just "confuse" people outside that group with people inside that group, and deny them due process. After the fact they just say, "Oh, it was just an accident." Well, these "accidents" don't happen when the law works the way it's intended to, where EVERYBODY is supposed to get due process.

Due process doesn't really exist in a reliable way unless everybody is entitled to it.

 

[Ritzwatch]

Can you explain what you're talking about?

I am happy to try to explain my understanding.

TLDR version: For nearly 30 years, the expedited removal process has authorized millions of non-citizens to be ordered deported by immigration officials within 2 years of their undocumented arrival in the US, said deportation being conducted without a court hearing or appeal rights unless the non-citizen can meet required showing of fear of persecution if deported.

...because I believe the courts so far have essentially said there is no expediting due process.

This is true, but most people have less than stellar understanding of due process. Expedited deportation is itself a process, with rules and processes to follow. Due process requires compliance with those rules, and that is all. That does not stop advocates from seeking more process, but a failure to get more process does not equal lack of due process. If it did, losing sides of any legal dispute would continue to advocate more and more "new" theories in order to not have to comply with rulings they do not like. As explained. below, I believe there is an expedited process, and no one has yet shown where that process was not complied with here.

It may not have been, and I am happy to hear evidence of that, but just because one doesn't like the end results of the application of our laws does not mean there was a lack of due process.

Yes, Trump can use this 200 year old wartime law to deport these people, but they still get due process.

I don't think the woman who was deported here was deported under the Alien Enemies Act. I think that is what the Admin has been using for the gang related deportations. I think that is different from the expedited removal process.

I don't think you know what you're talking about, but I could be wrong. What you got?

Sure. I am not an expert in immigration law, but I am happy to share. Just don't rely on it if someone is trying to deport you or someone you love. If I am wrong, I am happy to consider evidence to the contrary. In fact, I have solicited it many times here and get the typical trolling, rather than a substantive response. So, please correct me here if I am wrong.

In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act signed by President Clinton, the expedited removal process was created. This law allows designated immigration officials to remove certain non-citizens from the US without having to have a court hearing.

Expedited removal has been applied differently during different times (a natural and normal consequence of our nation's continued out-sourcing of congressional obligations to the Administrative State, but that is a different conversation entirely.) The current Trump policy, is the same as the Biden policy for the first half of the Biden term.

From June 2020 - March 2022, immigration officers could remove to non-citizens who arrived at ports of entry without proper documentation or with fraudulent documents. They could also apply it to non-citizens who entered without inspection, were never admitted or paroled, and and could not show they were physically present in the US for the two years prior to the officer determining they were inadmissible for fraud or lack of property documentation.

The Biden admin later changed use of expedited removal to be used against people within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of their arrival.

The Trump administration revived the previous Biden-era policy in January of 2025. Now, we are again at a place where an undocumented non-citizen is found in country and can not prove they have been here 2+ years, or that they are subject to persecution if removed, they are subject to deportation and the immigration officer can then order the non-citizen removed. This is not a decision that can be appealed. (Again, this is the process, and all the process that is DUE. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, (and neither may I, btw), but wanting a law changed does not make application of that law a lack of due process.)

There are additional protective processes available to non-citizens who express fear of persecution if removed or express an intent to apply to asylum. There are different process that apply to non-citizens who have previously been deported ("Reinstatement of Removal"), who have a higher standard of proof related to potential persecution if deported.

Millions of people have been deported under this process in last 29 years. The complaints about it are largely that the process is insufficient (i.e. "lack of due process") - that there are erroneous deportations, that there are not enough protections to those who might be in danger once deported, that there is not enough judicial review - but those concerns are not new to the Trump Administration, or just Republicans. They have been there under Clinton, Obama and Biden as well. They may be legitimate policy discussion, but that does not make for lack of due legal process.

Now, I have not seen any reporting on what process was used to deport this woman. Without knowing that, I can't say with certainty whether due process was given or not. Point is, no one on this board can either. Until someone shows where it was unlawful, or that there is a lack of due process, I will not assume there was.

There are my receipts.

Hope this post was informative, educational and helpful.

 

[Ritzwatch]

I think people need to understand that if some people don't enjoy due process, then nobody is guaranteed due process. If certain groups can be denied due process, then bad actors within the government can just "confuse" people outside that group with people inside that group, and deny them due process. After the fact they just say, "Oh, it was just an accident." Well, these "accidents" don't happen when the law works the way it's intended to, where EVERYBODY is supposed to get due process.

Due process doesn't really exist in a reliable way unless everybody is entitled to it.

Fixed it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

...


I don't think the woman who was deported here was deported under the Alien Enemies Act. I think that is what the Admin has been using for the gang related deportations. I think that is different from the expedited removal process.


...

Also, by the definition of "due process"(As you correctly pointed out), if Trump is abiding the AEA, then the AEA, as law, is its own 'due process' by definition, as 'due process' merely means that the law was followed.

 

[Ritzwatch]

Also, by the definition of "due process"(As you correctly pointed out), if Trump is abiding the AEA, then the AEA, as law, is its own 'due process' by definition, as 'due process' merely means that the law was followed.

I will agree. If Trump is abiding by the AEA, and abiding by the processes applied under the AEA, his admin can keep doing what they are doing, until either 1) Congress Acts ( ) or 2) Court finds the law Unconstitutional or inapplicable.

 

[n_huffhines]

TLDR version: For nearly 30 years, the expedited removal process has authorized millions of non-citizens to be ordered deported by immigration officials within 2 years of their undocumented arrival in the US, said deportation being conducted without a court hearing or appeal rights unless the non-citizen can meet required showing of fear of persecution if deported.

OK, but where is the part where "expedited process" = no constitutional due process?

I'm aware things can be sped up, but that doesn't mean no due process.

 

[Orange_Crush]

OK, but where is the part where "expedited process" = no constitutional due process?

I'm aware things can be sped up, but that doesn't mean no due process.

Have you so much as googled what he claimed?

It literally, clearly states what he said in his post. Here is a snippet. They don't get a judge. They don't so much as get a review by an immigration board of appeals.

Loading…

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

Expedited Removal Prior to Executive Order 13767 1. What is expedited removal, and who does it apply to now? Expedited removal is a procedure that allows a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official to summarily remove a noncitizen without a hearing before an immigration judge or review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any individual who arrives at a port of entry in the United States and who is inadmissible under either 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (misrepresentations and false claims to U.S. citizenship) or § 1182(a)(7) (lack of valid entry documents), is subject to expedited removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i).2 Additionally, the Secretary of DHS has the authority to apply expedited removal to any individual apprehended at a place other than a port of entry, who is inadmissible under either of those grounds, has not been admitted or paroled, and cannot show that he or she has been continuously present in the United States for two or more years. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), (iii). To date, DHS has limited its application of expedited removal to noncitizens inadmissible for one of the above-stated grounds who either arrive at a port of entry or are apprehended within 14 days of their arrival and within 100 miles of an international land border. See Designating Aliens For Expedited Removal, 69 Fed. Reg. 48877, 48880 (2004).

2. How does expedited removal differ from removal proceedings before an immigration judge? Expedited removal is substantially different from removal proceedings in immigration court conducted under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. In removal proceedings, an immigration judge hears the case. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(1). Noncitizens may have an attorney represent them (at their own expense), may apply for relief from removal, and are entitled to substantial due process protections. See, e.g., Pangilinan v. Holder, 568 F.3d 708, 709 (9th Cir. 2009) (“mmigration proceedings must conform to the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirement.”). Finally, even if an immigration judge orders an individual removed, that person may appeal the decision, first to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and then to a federal court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(c)(5), 1252. Expedited removal, as applied by DHS, does not have any of those procedural protections. The DHS officer who is authorized to issue an order of expedited removal operates as prosecutor and judge and often arrests an individual and orders him or her deported on the same day. With limited exceptions, discussed below, the government takes the position that noncitizens subject to expedited removal have no right to an appeal. At least one court has held that certain immigrants in expedited removal proceedings have no right to counsel. United States v. PeraltaSanchez, Nos. 14-50393, 14-50394, _ F.3d_, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2165 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2017).

The part you don't seem to understand is that the process "due" to a non-citizen is different than the process "due" a citizen in criminal or civil proceedings, as immigration is a branch of law that does not concern itself with citizens since we are not immigrants.

 

[Ritzwatch]

OK, but where is the part where "expedited process" = no constitutional due process?

I'm aware things can be sped up, but that doesn't mean no due process.

I disagree with your premise. The expedited process does not equal no due process. Not at all. The expedited process IS the due process.

At least as it relates to the Procedural Due Process - (were the rules followed?) - What rules not followed here? No one can say. They just say "Due Process!" without even knowing what that means.

As to the Substantive Due Process questions - (should these rules even be in place?) - Well, those are policy issues for Congress, and later fairness issues to be raised by courts regarding the application of the law. The expedited removal process has been in place 30 years, with millions of deportations, so I am sure a court has ruled on the substantive due process issues there, I just don't have the desire to research them right now when no one can show how this woman did not have her due process rights protected other than by saying they do not like her being deported, and they do not like her choice to take her children with her with she was deported.

So, I have shown my work, and I was specific. All I ask in return is answers to two questions: 1.) what constitutional due process did she not receive in her deportation proceeding? And, 2) What is the specific legal authority that required your level of desired due process in her deportation proceeding?

 

[Ritzwatch]

Have you so much as googled what he claimed?

It literally, clearly states what he said in his post. Here is a snippet. They don't get a judge. They don't so much as get a review by an immigration board of appeals.

Dang. I should have just googled and provided a link. That would have saved time.

Glad to have someone out there check my work, though, I want to be accurate.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I disagree with your premise. The expedited process does not equal no due process. Not at all. The expedited process IS the due process.

At least as it relates to the Procedural Due Process - (were the rules followed?) - What rules not followed here? No one can say. They just say "Due Process!" without even knowing what that means.

As to the Substantive Due Process questions - (should these rules even be in place?) - Well, those are policy issues for Congress, and later fairness issues to be raised by courts regarding the application of the law. The expedited removal process has been in place 30 years, with millions of deportations, so I am sure a court has ruled on the substantive due process issues there, I just don't have the desire to research them right now when no one can show how this woman did not have her due process rights protected other than by saying they do not like her being deported, and they do not like her choice to take her children with her with she was deported.

So, I have shown my work, and I was specific. All I ask in return is answers to two questions: 1.) what constitutional due process did she not receive in her deportation proceeding? And, 2) What is the specific legal authority that required your level of desired due process in her deportation proceeding?

The SCOTUS has ruled that immigrants get the same legal due process as citizens (to the extent that the question at hand applies to both immigrants and citizens).

So, an immigrant generally abides the same legal rights as a citizen when sued or indicted. But the fact that US citizens are not subjected to immigration law means that there are no "rights" to the citizen that could be applicable to the immigrant, since the US citizen isn't subject to the immigration laws, and the immigrant obviously doesn't have the same rights to stay in the US that the citizen does.

The law is the definition of the process due an individual. The expedited removal process defines the process due that segment of illegal immigrants. If one does not like it, change the law, or have SCOTUS abolish it. Heck, complain like a child online about it. But don't misrepresent the facts by claiming that they aren't getting their "due process".

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[rekinhavoc]

An egregious denial of due process for Jan. 6 protesters

The footage was kept from the American public by a Democratic Congress so a false narrative became cemented in the public consciousness.

nypost.com