As we return now from Easter, I’m trying to avoid doing an “I told you so,” but for eight weeks I have been saying this Administration’s behaviors would have consequences because judges and Justices do not live in a vacuum.
Question: regarding “ due process” that an illegal alien is purportedly entitled to prior to being deported: on what basis does a judge decide whether or not the person inside our country illegally should stay or be deported?
If an illegal alien is allowed to stay by judicial order, does this decision convey some sort of special status on the individual?
Since when, and on what legal basis, are illegal aliens granted “due process” that one would think would be reserved for citizens? Are illegal aliens immediately vested with certain rights once they step foot on American soil?
If someone approaches our border, why can they not be told they are not permitted to enter and then be told to turn around and head back?
As to the citizen of El Salvador, if he is returned to the U.S., then his history, past judicial exposure, and all the reasons why he should not be here should be thoroughly publicized and an example be made.
Thank you for your response. Certainly understand the point made for citizens and those legally admitted to the country.
However, those here illegally have no standing. So, again, on what basis would a judge decide whether or not a person here illegally should remain or be deported?
Bear in mind, too, one here illegally cannot be legally hired, have a driver’s license, or otherwise be profitably engaged in meaningful work. Are they not a drain on the economy? Why should taxpayers be on the hook for them?
Standing is another, perhaps even more complicated question than that of due process for illegal aliens. At its core, however, is the requirement that one actually has something to lose in a given case. One might argue that with no right to be here in the first place, an illegal has nothing to lose in a deportation proceeding. However, there are a number of second places, so to speak, that such a person might raise; such as a legitimate claim for asylum or, as I mentioned earlier, a relevant court order.
As for the other issues that you raise, they are questions of policy on which I don't necessarily disagree with you. That said, I still would not want to treat anyone - even an illegal alien - in a way that is fundamentally unfair.
Due process, at its core, consists of an opportunity to be heard: with respect to deportation, to articulate any reason why one should not be deported. For example, if one is to be deported for being in the country illegally, due process requires an opportunity to show that one actually has a court order saying that you get to stay. Without due process, mere accusation suffices. It could be the single biggest thing that makes ours a country of laws instead of men.
Any further discussion of due process as it pertains to illegals would require a more extensive review of the law than I'm willing to make. However, the underlying notion is simply one of fairness. If people here illegally are nevertheless to be treated fairly, what's wrong with that?
Not necessarily. Put yourself in the position of someone who is fleeing a criminal gang that has made an extremely credible threat of killing you on first sight. Legal processes not being an option, given the time that would take, "not entering otherwise" in such an instance would mean not fairness, but death.
This is why fairness - otherwise known as "due process" - requires that even someone who entered the country illegally be given an opportunity to explain why and to offer any valid reason he might have for being allowed to stay.
And how would anyone know that this would be true let alone that the only place the person could be safe would be here? Hope they would not meet up with the gang members illegally here.
In most legal proceedings, the burden of proof falls upon the person making a claim. Not being an immigration lawyer, I can only assume that a claim for asylum would be no different. That is, an immigrant claiming asylum would have to offer convincing proof that he has a valid claim for asylum under the laws of this country. Otherwise, back he goes.
When one is so obsessed with a "process" than whether that process is right or wrong, than what the results are, that one overlooks the real consequences of said process, one might be myopic enough to aid in the destruction of the country by the very illegal gangbangers one is trying to "protect". Perhaps it is mean, but I am beginning to wish that each person demanding a "process" be required to spend a few hours with one of these lovely people, or maybe seeing a few photos of their "work" would be sufficient.
Here is my question, and maybe Erick knows the answer - could POTUS send an immigration judge and Abrego's attorneys to El Salvador to complete any hearing necessary to satisfy SCOTUS' process concerns? Then, assuming the judge ratifies the previous findings, due process has been provided, and his deportation is complete?
Modern Christian intellectuals undermining Historical and Scriptural Christianity... gee, I'm so shocked 😒 They've done a lot of damage.
Despite this, there are reports that UK Christian observance is increasing, though not with the Church of England. If memory aerves, data in America shows that observance here seems to have plateaued, so the decline has stopped.
It seems like Christianity Today is trolling with click bait. We all seem to have some amount of an urge to be accepted, even by the folks who really don’t have our best interest at heart. I fear that some of the folks at Christianity Today have some of that fear of acceptance going on, and maybe think this dissembling might broaden their readership. They probably haven’t heard the story about the bird in the hand versus the two in the bush.
I read somewhere that it was a democrat attorney who stated Abrego Garcia's deportation was and "error" - maybe? Maybe not. Aside from this claim, why wasn't he deported 1 of the other 2 times he was ordered by 2 individual judges to be deported? Why is it such an issue now, when he wasn't even sent to Cecot in El Salvador? Am sick of this story, this guy's proposed "innocence" and the ridiculous nonsense of democrats trying to get an evil guy back so he can be deported again - all at taxpayer expense.
"Humility" is impossible for Trump. It's too bad he's hurting chances for any level of successes at the mid-terms. We will have to hope the other side really helps the causes of conservatives by continuing to display their silly beliefs.
As for the Pope, may he rest in peace. As a former Catholic I am still amazed at the selection process for Popes.
Stop saying the administration removed Garcia in error. They removed him to El Salvador in error. But out of the country he was ordered to be, but the court process you said is being ignored. He had gone through the proper process and was ordered by a court to be removed because he was here illegally and two courts had found him to be part of MS-13. A second court granted his appeal to not be removed El Slavador, his home ground because a "rival" gang would do him harm, a self-admission of gang membership. The administration had every legal right and DUTY to remove him - the error, is there is one, was removing him to El Salvador. Tell the whole story or you have no "I told you so."
Sorry, Rod. The Trump Administration acknowledged three separate times in courts, and I quote them, "On March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error." So yes, he was removed from this country in error. Your nitpick is irrelevant to that fact. The whole story is as I said. He was removed in error.
Thank you for the reply, Erick. But even that quote shows the opposite of what you are claiming. Unless this is some Rorschach test on Abrego-Garcia, it clearly says the removal destination was the error — "removed to El Salvador" — not the removal itself. It's not a nitpick. It actually matters.
The easiest thing to do is to give Abrego Garcia a Zoom hearing. That way due process will be satisfied. We did thst during COVID and it's a valid mechanism. It won't be enough for the Democrats who are desperately searching for any issue to hang their hats on, but it is necessary.
If the court upholds the previous order of deportation, wish Mr. Garcia well and tell him to enjoy El Salvador.
Good Morning People Erick it’s good to have you back as far as deportations go they have ONE out of thousands to bring out and make a Big deal about and f your a Christian you believe what the Bible says and tells you and if you’re not you try to find something wrong so you can toot your horn and get attention but you’re really nothing
We had a bad choice this election. The choice for President between a complete buffon who gave no indication on where she stood on anything, a walking breathing example of the Peter Principle who had risen well above her capabilities, and a person that on the world stage will make us cringe with embarrassment, will be the political bully, will make us scream at the TV during one of his news briefings, but may do some good for the country. It was not the best election in the world. For my own piece of mind I have reduced the amount of news I watch since my anger or lack of it will not change anything about the coverage or the policies both good and bad. I watch now mostly to make sure we have not started a global war and to see what the weather will be for the week.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen.
Why does a person who entered this country illegally even have rights to question being sent out of this country? Do Americans get such rights if they enter countries around the world illegally? I think our judicial system is totally messed up. I don’t recall the famous person from the past off- hand, but he wrote something about a country that has too many laws becomes a corrupt country. I believe the USA crossed that bridge decades ago and protecting illegal aliens is part of that corruption. Especially after 4 years of obvious illegal invasion that the courts sat on their hands about.
For anyone who has followed the scientific investigations into the Shroud of Turin, the image on the cloth is of a man who clearly has nail marks through his wrist (considered part of the hand)and feet.
I thought this aspect of the crucifixion was long settled. Do "bible scholars" have to publish controversial articles to remain relevant?
The way Garcia puts it, it is clear that article was about him, for attention. He channeling his inner RFK, he is not asking probing questions he is being a professional contrarian.
There are things in the Bible for which there is legitimate debate of the meaning,. however, the debate does not alter the significance and impact.
Garcia is doing nothing more than any sceptic when they discount a miracle by accepting the possible but highly improbable because they are by faith convinced that miracles are not possible. I expect him next to say that Christ did not die but rather survived.
Question: regarding “ due process” that an illegal alien is purportedly entitled to prior to being deported: on what basis does a judge decide whether or not the person inside our country illegally should stay or be deported?
If an illegal alien is allowed to stay by judicial order, does this decision convey some sort of special status on the individual?
Since when, and on what legal basis, are illegal aliens granted “due process” that one would think would be reserved for citizens? Are illegal aliens immediately vested with certain rights once they step foot on American soil?
If someone approaches our border, why can they not be told they are not permitted to enter and then be told to turn around and head back?
As to the citizen of El Salvador, if he is returned to the U.S., then his history, past judicial exposure, and all the reasons why he should not be here should be thoroughly publicized and an example be made.
A legitimate claim to asylum is one point which could be handled by applying for entry and being permitted to stay.
One recalls that immigrants coming through Ellis Island were put back on the ships they arrived on for any number of reasons such as poor health.
Thank you for your response. Certainly understand the point made for citizens and those legally admitted to the country.
However, those here illegally have no standing. So, again, on what basis would a judge decide whether or not a person here illegally should remain or be deported?
Bear in mind, too, one here illegally cannot be legally hired, have a driver’s license, or otherwise be profitably engaged in meaningful work. Are they not a drain on the economy? Why should taxpayers be on the hook for them?
Standing is another, perhaps even more complicated question than that of due process for illegal aliens. At its core, however, is the requirement that one actually has something to lose in a given case. One might argue that with no right to be here in the first place, an illegal has nothing to lose in a deportation proceeding. However, there are a number of second places, so to speak, that such a person might raise; such as a legitimate claim for asylum or, as I mentioned earlier, a relevant court order.
As for the other issues that you raise, they are questions of policy on which I don't necessarily disagree with you. That said, I still would not want to treat anyone - even an illegal alien - in a way that is fundamentally unfair.
Due process, at its core, consists of an opportunity to be heard: with respect to deportation, to articulate any reason why one should not be deported. For example, if one is to be deported for being in the country illegally, due process requires an opportunity to show that one actually has a court order saying that you get to stay. Without due process, mere accusation suffices. It could be the single biggest thing that makes ours a country of laws instead of men.
Any further discussion of due process as it pertains to illegals would require a more extensive review of the law than I'm willing to make. However, the underlying notion is simply one of fairness. If people here illegally are nevertheless to be treated fairly, what's wrong with that?
Fairness suggests that entry be by legal processes…not entering otherwise.
Not necessarily. Put yourself in the position of someone who is fleeing a criminal gang that has made an extremely credible threat of killing you on first sight. Legal processes not being an option, given the time that would take, "not entering otherwise" in such an instance would mean not fairness, but death.
This is why fairness - otherwise known as "due process" - requires that even someone who entered the country illegally be given an opportunity to explain why and to offer any valid reason he might have for being allowed to stay.
And how would anyone know that this would be true let alone that the only place the person could be safe would be here? Hope they would not meet up with the gang members illegally here.
In most legal proceedings, the burden of proof falls upon the person making a claim. Not being an immigration lawyer, I can only assume that a claim for asylum would be no different. That is, an immigrant claiming asylum would have to offer convincing proof that he has a valid claim for asylum under the laws of this country. Otherwise, back he goes.
When one is so obsessed with a "process" than whether that process is right or wrong, than what the results are, that one overlooks the real consequences of said process, one might be myopic enough to aid in the destruction of the country by the very illegal gangbangers one is trying to "protect". Perhaps it is mean, but I am beginning to wish that each person demanding a "process" be required to spend a few hours with one of these lovely people, or maybe seeing a few photos of their "work" would be sufficient.
Donald Trump has a big ego. So maybe someone needs to remind him to have some humble pie. Bring the dude back, then deport him back to El Salvador.
Here is my question, and maybe Erick knows the answer - could POTUS send an immigration judge and Abrego's attorneys to El Salvador to complete any hearing necessary to satisfy SCOTUS' process concerns? Then, assuming the judge ratifies the previous findings, due process has been provided, and his deportation is complete?
Pope Francis has passed. But was he "Peter the Roman" in St. Malachy's Pope Prophecies?
Modern Christian intellectuals undermining Historical and Scriptural Christianity... gee, I'm so shocked 😒 They've done a lot of damage.
Despite this, there are reports that UK Christian observance is increasing, though not with the Church of England. If memory aerves, data in America shows that observance here seems to have plateaued, so the decline has stopped.
As for Trump and the Bondi DOJ - way to go.
It seems like Christianity Today is trolling with click bait. We all seem to have some amount of an urge to be accepted, even by the folks who really don’t have our best interest at heart. I fear that some of the folks at Christianity Today have some of that fear of acceptance going on, and maybe think this dissembling might broaden their readership. They probably haven’t heard the story about the bird in the hand versus the two in the bush.
I read somewhere that it was a democrat attorney who stated Abrego Garcia's deportation was and "error" - maybe? Maybe not. Aside from this claim, why wasn't he deported 1 of the other 2 times he was ordered by 2 individual judges to be deported? Why is it such an issue now, when he wasn't even sent to Cecot in El Salvador? Am sick of this story, this guy's proposed "innocence" and the ridiculous nonsense of democrats trying to get an evil guy back so he can be deported again - all at taxpayer expense.
"Humility" is impossible for Trump. It's too bad he's hurting chances for any level of successes at the mid-terms. We will have to hope the other side really helps the causes of conservatives by continuing to display their silly beliefs.
As for the Pope, may he rest in peace. As a former Catholic I am still amazed at the selection process for Popes.
Stop saying the administration removed Garcia in error. They removed him to El Salvador in error. But out of the country he was ordered to be, but the court process you said is being ignored. He had gone through the proper process and was ordered by a court to be removed because he was here illegally and two courts had found him to be part of MS-13. A second court granted his appeal to not be removed El Slavador, his home ground because a "rival" gang would do him harm, a self-admission of gang membership. The administration had every legal right and DUTY to remove him - the error, is there is one, was removing him to El Salvador. Tell the whole story or you have no "I told you so."
Sorry, Rod. The Trump Administration acknowledged three separate times in courts, and I quote them, "On March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error." So yes, he was removed from this country in error. Your nitpick is irrelevant to that fact. The whole story is as I said. He was removed in error.
Thank you for the reply, Erick. But even that quote shows the opposite of what you are claiming. Unless this is some Rorschach test on Abrego-Garcia, it clearly says the removal destination was the error — "removed to El Salvador" — not the removal itself. It's not a nitpick. It actually matters.
The easiest thing to do is to give Abrego Garcia a Zoom hearing. That way due process will be satisfied. We did thst during COVID and it's a valid mechanism. It won't be enough for the Democrats who are desperately searching for any issue to hang their hats on, but it is necessary.
If the court upholds the previous order of deportation, wish Mr. Garcia well and tell him to enjoy El Salvador.
Good Morning People Erick it’s good to have you back as far as deportations go they have ONE out of thousands to bring out and make a Big deal about and f your a Christian you believe what the Bible says and tells you and if you’re not you try to find something wrong so you can toot your horn and get attention but you’re really nothing
We had a bad choice this election. The choice for President between a complete buffon who gave no indication on where she stood on anything, a walking breathing example of the Peter Principle who had risen well above her capabilities, and a person that on the world stage will make us cringe with embarrassment, will be the political bully, will make us scream at the TV during one of his news briefings, but may do some good for the country. It was not the best election in the world. For my own piece of mind I have reduced the amount of news I watch since my anger or lack of it will not change anything about the coverage or the policies both good and bad. I watch now mostly to make sure we have not started a global war and to see what the weather will be for the week.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen.
Why does a person who entered this country illegally even have rights to question being sent out of this country? Do Americans get such rights if they enter countries around the world illegally? I think our judicial system is totally messed up. I don’t recall the famous person from the past off- hand, but he wrote something about a country that has too many laws becomes a corrupt country. I believe the USA crossed that bridge decades ago and protecting illegal aliens is part of that corruption. Especially after 4 years of obvious illegal invasion that the courts sat on their hands about.
For anyone who has followed the scientific investigations into the Shroud of Turin, the image on the cloth is of a man who clearly has nail marks through his wrist (considered part of the hand)and feet.
I thought this aspect of the crucifixion was long settled. Do "bible scholars" have to publish controversial articles to remain relevant?
Spikes were hand made so expensive compared to rope. They probably used both.
Keep speaking truth, Erick!
Trump ego once again writes a NSF check.
The way Garcia puts it, it is clear that article was about him, for attention. He channeling his inner RFK, he is not asking probing questions he is being a professional contrarian.
There are things in the Bible for which there is legitimate debate of the meaning,. however, the debate does not alter the significance and impact.
Garcia is doing nothing more than any sceptic when they discount a miracle by accepting the possible but highly improbable because they are by faith convinced that miracles are not possible. I expect him next to say that Christ did not die but rather survived.