Posted on 06/28/2018 9:44:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last weekend, President Donald Trump argued that those foreigners who enter the United States unlawfully should simply be taken to the border, escorted across it and let go. According to the president, this would save precious government resources, avoid the business of separating children from their parents and free up the Border Patrol and other federal assets to do their jobs.
He is undoubtedly correct on the beneficial consequences to the government of forced deportation without due process. Yet deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional.
Here is the back story.
The nation has been torn apart by the images of immigrant children -- some are babies -- being forcibly separated from their parents by U.S. immigration authorities, who were getting orders from the Trump administration, which was misreading federal law so as to require the separation.
The government has essentially taken the position that those physically present in the U.S. illegally have few constitutional rights and thus family members who arrive together can be separated, no matter the psychological or physical consequences. This forced separation is not novel to the Trump administration, but its massive scale in the present toxic national political environment has painfully brought it to our collective conscience.
The forced separation by the government of children from their parents without a trial when neither is a danger to the other is child abuse or kidnapping or both. When federal authorities engage in such morally repellant behavior -- whether as a negotiating technique to bring the president's political adversaries to the bargaining table or to coerce the immigrants to go home -- it exposes them to state prosecution because of the acute and long-term harm they have caused to the children.
After a tidal wave of public opinion against this practice finally resonated in the White House, President Trump signed an executive order last week that permitted, but did not require, immigration authorities to reunite the children and their parents. Then, in the wake of a slow reunification -- some of the children had been sent from Texas to New York while their parents were kept in Texas -- the president uttered his exasperation regarding due process.
If he had asked his lawyers first, he would have learned that there is no legal basis for his official antipathy to due process.
The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial.
Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.
This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported.
Hundreds of books and law review articles have been written about due process. Here we are addressing procedural due process, which has three components. The first is notice. The person against whom the government is proceeding is entitled to a written statement specifically articulating his alleged wrongful behavior sufficiently prior to trial. Once notice is given, the government is hard-pressed to alter the charges.
The second component of due process is the requirement of the government to prove its charges against the person to whom it has given notice before a neutral judicial official, not one who works for the entity that is proceeding against him.
The third component of due process requires that the entire proceeding against the person be fair, that it appear to be fair and that the outcome be rational. The judge can decide whom to believe, but she cannot, for example, decide that 2+2=22, as that would be irrational. Fairness also includes the right to an appeal.
The dangers of rejecting the plain meaning of the Constitution ("person") and the dangers of taking a class of people and refusing to recognize their fundamental constitutional rights because of an immutable characteristic of birth (alienage) cannot be overstated.
President Trump is my friend. I like him dearly and wish him well and want him to succeed. But he is profoundly wrong here. He cannot lawfully or morally reject his oath to uphold the Constitution. Denying due process on the basis of alienage is tantamount to denying the personhood of undocumented foreigners as the U.S. once did to slaves and does today to babies in the womb. And that denial is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie tyranny and misery.
Build a wall.
RE: Build a wall.
This article is not about the wall ( although you are right ).
...deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional...
You’re kidding right?
ILLEGAL aliens ...
They’re not immigrants. They entered the country without authorization. They can be deported.
RE: They can be deported.
The issue is not whether or not they can be deported. The issue is -— Do they deserve a trail first?
Building a wall would make his point moot.
nap is saying illegal aliens have constitutional rights.
RE: Building a wall would make his point moot.
let’s assume that despite the Wall, some are actually able to get through anyway, what then?
Can they be deported without a trial?
RE: nap is saying illegal aliens have constitutional rights.
Yep, that’s in effect what he’s saying. True or false?
nap is a moron who is just about always wrong. I love the Eddie Munster hair, though.
When a burglar is caught in a house ...they dont keep him there and have the trial in the house. Have the trials in Mexico.
Wont be the first time the idiot napolitano is wrong. Thousands of illegal aliens are removed without trials. There is no constitutional guarantee of a trial for a foreign illegal. The only hearing an illegal is allowed by statute is whe asylum is claimed.
Napolitanos problem is he is an egocentric nut who has to make stupid outlandish claims to get back in the center of attention.
> Yet deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional. <
Suppose there is a surge, and 10,000 illegals cross the border in a single day. Then tomorrow, another 10,000. Each and every one of them gets a trial? How is that even possible?
I disagree with the Judge here. The first thing is that there is no such thing as “Constitutional Rights”. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are God given natural rights. They are not rights granted by the government.
The U.S. Constitution requires the U.S. government protect the natural rights of U.S. Citizens. Now, judges may have set precedent over the years of making the U.S. govt. protector of the natural rights of non-citizens, but just because a Judge ruled on something does not make it law.
We are very tired of judges legislating from the bench and all of that folly needs to be overturned by judges who implement the law in their decisions, not “interpret” it to make it mean something not intended, i.e., the “anchor baby” interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
If Judge puts more credence in bad rulings by judges than the actual Constitution and law, he’s slipping over to the other side.
National security. State of emergency. Too bad.
Exactly, they are already illegal, that should be (and used to be) enough. Some just want to snarl things up so badly with illegals clogging courts, wasting time and money, that deporting them becomes an exercise in futility.
Invaders should be shot.
I don’t see how it is any different that releasing a POW.
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.