Law Biden Appointed Judge Just Severely Handicapped Trump's Mass Deportation Plan

[Mr Holmes]

Judges are beholden to the law—not the President's whims. You should read up a bit on American civics and political science if that confuses you.

Yeah sure. Notice how it wasn't an issue until Trump took over.

 

[Hog-train]

For the same reason that ICE is allowed warrantless searches that are exempt from the 4th Amendment near the border, but not in the middle of the country.

I don't know if her ruling is very sound, but authority of government agencies is not created equal in all parts of the country.

The law that established expedited removals, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, never put a geographical limit to where they could use the removal process.

It was just self imposed as a matter of chosen policy. DHS is perfectly within it's rights to expand expedited removal past the 100 mile border.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Expedited removal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[panamaican]

Once you read the opinion, the due process issue becomes very apparent.

In expedited removals, the accused is not entitled to counsel, they don't appear before a judge, etc. It's truly expedited as the entire process can be finished within a few days. Which is fine, provided there are guardrails to ensure that the people subjected to the expedited process are likely to be illegal immigrants.

The guardrail in question here is that the illegal immigrant must be encountered within 100 miles of the land border. This makes sense because they're close enough to the border that the government is less likely to pick up the wrong people. However, once you remove the 100 mile barrier, it becomes a nationwide scenario for non-citizens. And non-citizens isn't just illegal immigrants. It includes people on work visas, student visas, etc. If people on valid visas are erroneously picked up far from the border where there they don't expect to run into this expedited process and then removed without a hearing or a chance to call a lawyer, get their paperwork, etc., there's a problem.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I, for one, do not agree with this ruling and believe it negatively impacts the country.

Why do you disagree and how does it negatively impact the country?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Once you read the opinion, the due process issue becomes very apparent.

In expedited removals, the accused is not entitled to counsel, they don't appear before a judge, etc. It's truly expedited as the entire process can be finished within a few days. Which is fine, provided there are guardrails to ensure that the people subjected to the expedited process are likely to be illegal immigrants.

The guardrail in question here is that the illegal immigrant must be encountered within 100 miles of the land border. This makes sense because they're close enough to the border that the government is less likely to pick up the wrong people. However, once you remove the 100 mile barrier, it becomes a nationwide scenario for non-citizens. And non-citizens isn't just illegal immigrants. It includes people on work visas, student visas, etc.

If people on valid visas are erroneously picked up far from the border where there they don't expect to run into this expedited process and then removed without a hearing or a chance to call a lawyer, get their paperwork, etc., there's a problem.

Its only a problem if you think America should respect the due process of immigrants and if you want America to remain a welcoming country for them. All the evidence suggests that MAGA does not agree on either count, they want to make America as unwelcoming as possible for immigrants and undercutting their due process rights is part of that.

The obvious objection is "well undermining due process for some undermines it for all" but even that is a selling point as it implies the possibility of undermining the due process rights of other out-groups.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

All the evidence suggests that MAGA does not agree on either count, they want to make America as unwelcoming as possible for immigrants and undercutting their due process rights is part of then.

maybe of shitty immigrants.
doubt maga would protest if tomorrow a million norvegians or a million japanese would decide to come over.

 

[Islam Imamate]

maybe of shitty immigrants.
doubt maga would protest if tomorrow a million norvegians or a million japanese would decide to come over.

They're going after professionals and STEM students who are unequivocally a significant net benefit for the country. Has nothing to do with sorting good and bad immigrants, its about reducing immigration overall not just through tightening channels of entry but also by ejecting as many resident immigrants directly or making their situation precarious enough that they self deport.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

They're going after professionals and STEM students who are unequivocally a significant net benefit for the country. Has nothing to do with sorting good and bad immigrants, its about reducing immigration overall not just through tightening channels of entry but also by ejecting as many resident immigrants directly or making their situation precarious enough that they self deport.

i mean, that's what the people voted for. it's probably the most significant issue they did vote on. it might be the one for the next election as well. i see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

i mean, that's what the people voted for. it's probably the most significant issue they did vote on. i see nothing wrong with that.

I do see something wrong with it and I see no reason to sugarcoat it or make excuses for it.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Why do you disagree and how does it negatively impact the country?

If you must know…

First, it directly contradicts the illegal immigration reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996 which grants DHS the right to deport illegal immigrants especially for individuals who are not legally entitled to remain in country.

The entire point of that act was for the expedited removal and streamlined deportation processes for those who do not qualify for legal status so we could reduce strain on immigration courts.

What this does is allow paroled illegal immigrants access to remain here long term when the whole point of the parole process was for short term humanitarian purposes.

I disagree with Cobb, because as the article states, the 1996 law grants the DHS secretary “sole and unreviewable discretion” to manage immigration policy.

We also had a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling upholding expedited removals so this directly goes against that as well.

It’s a negative because it delays deportations, signals to future illegal immigrants that they have a chance to stay here with impunity and undermines trust in our immigration system.

This is not to mention that these people are here illegally and this is just a leftist judge trying to block the will of the electorate who overwhelmingly want deportations.

 

[Islam Imamate]

If you must know…

First, it directly contradicts the illegal immigration reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996 which grants DHS the right to deport illegal immigrants especially for individuals who are not legally entitled to remain in country.

The entire point of that act was for the expedited removal and streamlined deportation processes for those who do not qualify for legal status so we could reduce strain on immigration courts.

What this does is allow paroled illegal immigrants access to remain here long term when the whole point of the parole process was for short term humanitarian purposes.

I disagree with Cobb, because as the article states, the 1996 law grants the DHS secretary “sole and unreviewable discretion” to manage immigration policy.

We also had a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling upholding expedited removals so this directly goes against that as well.

These expedited deportations are supposed to be specifically within the 100 mile border zone though right? Trump's attempt to expand it beyond that zone is the issue in question no?

It’s a negative because it delays deportations, signals to future illegal immigrants that they have a chance to stay here with impunity and undermines trust in our immigration system.

This is not to mention that these people are here illegally and this is just a leftist judge trying to block the will of the electorate who overwhelmingly want deportations.

How is strengthening due process for immigrants undermining trust in our immigration system? Surely due process rights are not something we decide based on election outcomes right?

 

[MacGregor]

 

[Soggust]

These expedited deportations are supposed to be specifically within the 100 mile border zone though right? Trump's attempt to expand it beyond that zone is the issue in question no?

No, that's just a DHS enforcement policy.

The only legal limit for expedited removal for undocumented immigrants is that they have been here less than 2 years. It was initially just enforced at ports, then expanded into 100m border, and now trump is expanding again, which imo seems legal if it's a DHS policy and Trump controls them.

The Judge's argument, iirc, is if enacting nationwide = lack of due process, but I have a hard time justifying it as enough due process in one area, but not enough down the street.

 

[avenue94]

If you must know…

First, it directly contradicts the illegal immigration reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996 which grants DHS the right to deport illegal immigrants especially for individuals who are not legally entitled to remain in country.

The entire point of that act was for the expedited removal and streamlined deportation processes for those who do not qualify for legal status so we could reduce strain on immigration courts.

What this does is allow paroled illegal immigrants access to remain here long term when the whole point of the parole process was for short term humanitarian purposes.

I disagree with Cobb, because as the article states, the 1996 law grants the DHS secretary “sole and unreviewable discretion” to manage immigration policy.

We also had a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling upholding expedited removals so this directly goes against that as well.

It’s a negative because it delays deportations, signals to future illegal immigrants that they have a chance to stay here with impunity and undermines trust in our immigration system.

This is not to mention that these people are here illegally and this is just a leftist judge trying to block the will of the electorate who overwhelmingly want deportations.

Out of curiosity, do you also support expanding the ICE exemption to 4th Amendment requirements in every part of the country, not just near borders?

 

[Islam Imamate]

No, that's just a DHS enforcement policy.

The only legal limit for expedited removal for undocumented immigrants is that they have been here less than 2 years. It was initially just enforced at ports, then expanded into 100m border, and now trump is expanding again, which imo seems legal if it's a DHS policy and Trump controls them.

Is Trump not applying expedited removals against immigrants who are here longer than two years?

The Judge's argument, iirc, is if enacting nationwide = lack of due process, but I have a hard time justifying it as enough due process in one area, but not enough down the street.

I agree, a port of entry is one thing but I always thought the 100 mile border zone was an egregious infringement on rights.

If anything they're a far greater threat to civil liberties, we have a quasi-police state in the 100 mile border zone where CBP regularly perform illegal searches and its the largest agency under Homeland Security.

 

[Soggust]

Is Trump not applying expedited removals against immigrants who are here longer than two years?

I don't think he has, because he's not legally allowed, but I also understand that's not a real compelling argument with this admin lol.

I agree, a port of entry is one thing but I always thought the 100 mile border zone was an egregious infringement on rights.

I personally think I like the port of entry only or everywhere arguments.

I think a 100-mile border seems irrelevant in 2025.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I personally think I like the port of entry only or everywhere arguments.

I think a 100-mile border seems irrelevant in 2025.

I don't think we should carve out a nation wide exemption for the 4th amendment.

 

[Hog-train]

Once you read the opinion, the due process issue becomes very apparent.

In expedited removals, the accused is not entitled to counsel, they don't appear before a judge, etc. It's truly expedited as the entire process can be finished within a few days. Which is fine, provided there are guardrails to ensure that the people subjected to the expedited process are likely to be illegal immigrants.

The guardrail in question here is that the illegal immigrant must be encountered within 100 miles of the land border. This makes sense because they're close enough to the border that the government is less likely to pick up the wrong people. However, once you remove the 100 mile barrier, it becomes a nationwide scenario for non-citizens. And non-citizens isn't just illegal immigrants. It includes people on work visas, student visas, etc. If people on valid visas are erroneously picked up far from the border where there they don't expect to run into this expedited process and then removed without a hearing or a chance to call a lawyer, get their paperwork, etc., there's a problem.

The 100 miles of the border is a useless guardrail in modern times. Illegals are now immediately smuggled to the interior of the country and the big cities.

These expedited deportations are supposed to be specifically within the 100 mile border zone though right? Trump's attempt to expand it beyond that zone is the issue in question no?

They're not "supposed" to be anything. That's not what the 1996 law says. It was just a matter of self imposed policy by previous administrations.

That policy is set by DHS which is under the executive branch. They have wide legal latitude to set whatever immigration policies they want.

The only caveat to the expedited removal law is that it is limited to whoever came within the last 2 years.

How is strengthening due process for immigrants undermining trust in our immigration system? Surely due process rights are not something we decide based on election outcomes right?

That literally is the "due process" afforded by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. They get a credible fear interview by an immigration official.

You just have a different idea of what due process should be. You're applying what you think due process should be in criminal court to immigration - both those are two completely separate things under different jurisdictions.

Immigration is more like a hearing and a job interview to be a resident of the country as opposed to criminal court where you need to "prove" things beyond a reasonable doubt. Things like hearsay and recommendations and "good moral character" are allowed in immigration proceedings.

If the whole country implemented what you "think" full due process should be, it'd be practically impossible to stem the hordes of illegal immigrants coming in. It would take years and years to process, vet and appeal one illegal immigrant costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I don't think we should carve out a nation wide exemption for the 4th amendment.

Expedited removal was deemed constitutional, having been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2020 case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.

 

[Rob Battisti]

These expedited deportations are supposed to be specifically within the 100 mile border zone though right? Trump's attempt to expand it beyond that zone is the issue in question no?

How is strengthening due process for immigrants undermining trust in our immigration system? Surely due process rights are not something we decide based on election outcomes right?

@Hog-train appropriately addressed your first and second points.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The 100 miles of the border is a useless guardrail in modern times. Illegals are now immediately smuggled to the interior of the country and the big cities.

So should 4th amendment protections for suspected illegals be revoked across the entire country? Or just allow expedited removals from beyond the 100 mile zone?

They're not "supposed" to be anything. That's not what the 1996 law says. It was just a matter of self imposed policy by previous administrations.

That policy is set by DHS which is under the executive branch. They have wide legal latitude to set whatever immigration policies they want.

The only caveat to the expedited removal law is that it is limited to whoever came within the last 2 years.

So Trump is violating the spirit of the law as applied by previous presidents but not the letter?

That literally is the "due process" afforded by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. They get a credible fear interview by an immigration official.

You just have a different idea of what due process should be. You're applying what you think due process should be in criminal court to immigration - both those are two completely separate things under different jurisdictions.

Immigration is more like a hearing and a job interview to be a resident of the country as opposed to criminal court where you need to "prove" things beyond a reasonable doubt. Things like hearsay and recommendations and "good moral character" are allowed in immigration proceedings.

If the whole country implemented what you "think" full due process should be, it'd be practically impossible to stem the hordes of illegal immigrants coming in. It would take years and years to process, vet and appeal one illegal immigrant costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Expedited removals make more sense when they're restricted or caveated like they were initially when they were used near ports of entry or later within the 100 mile border zone(which I disagree with), to endlessly expand it just undermines due process.

Expedited removal was deemed constitutional, having been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2020 case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.

I'm referring to warrantless searches that are allowed within the 100 mile border zone.