Hillary's deportation comments on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

On Fox News Sunday Hillary claimed that she supported deporting criminals. "Let's look at deportation. Whoever is president gets to determine what the priorities are. My priorities are deport criminals, violent criminals as fast as we can. Deport anybody that we think even has a passable link to terrorism."

Wasn't there an amendment to the 2007 amnesty bill that would have deported illegals flagged for deportation by judges, and Hillary voted against it along with Chuck Schumer, the late Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy?

In practical terms, violent criminals who are Mexican citizens and ex-convicts present a problem. That is, Mexico is unable to process them back as fast as we can kick them out.

If we just “kick them across the border”, they will either be back in the US by nightfall; or as bad, join one of the cartels just south of the border. Which also threatens the US.

So the solution is to build “repatriation detention facilities” just north of the border, under ICE jurisdiction, as if they were a border crossing. Why? Because normal constitutional rules do not entirely apply in customs areas. They would neither be in the US nor in Mexico, but *between* the two, caught in the Twilight Zone.

The facilities would have a “double gate”. That is, Mexico would both have to agree to take them back, and to transport them to Mexico City. The other gate would be the US processing them for release. So if, say, a Mexican government demanded all of them back right now, we would say, glad to, once we finish each of their paperwork.

Importantly, the detention facilities are not designated as prisons, because to get there, they would have already served their sentence in a US prison. But because it is in a Customs Area, they could be detained for a long time.

Of course, the whiners would say they were being held without charge and demand habeus corpus for them. But that does not apply to detention in a Customs Area. The US could point out that they are Mexican citizens, and that Mexico is “working” for their repatriation, so the US cannot let them go until Mexico asks for them.

The benefits of doing all this is that first of all, its gets these vicious criminals off the US streets. And it lets others know that if they are caught, they go straight to detention, where they stay until Mexico agrees to take them to Mexico City.

The Mexico City part is important. For years, Arizona sponsored a “voluntary repatriation” of illegal aliens by aircraft, flying them to Mexico City as soon as they got a full load. It was very cost efficient, about as cheap as driving them to the border. But Mexico City is a thousand miles away from the US border, making their return to the US much, much harder.

“Deport anybody that we think even has a passable link to terrorism.”

To Kenya perhaps?

How about instead if we just don’t admit them to the US in the first place? Trump’s plan is far more efficient. Clinton displays her total ignorance of immigration law and practice; one problem, and we learned this with the SE Asia gangs, is that you can’t deport anyone to a home country that refuses to accept them. So, again, point Trump.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.