Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rule of Law?
If I live in a jurisdiction in which the district attorney expressly refuses to prosecute anyone who steals purses from old ladies carrying less than $10,000 in cash and valuables, does that establish a legal right to steal purses from old ladies? If a cop or some do-gooder grabs me a few seconds after they hear some annoying old lady yelling about being robbed, can they take that purse from me and return it to her without a hearing or due process?
We live in a jurisdiction (the USA) in which a lawless chief enforcement official (Joseph Robinette Biden) not only refused to enforce immigration law but actively imported illegal aliens. Ten or twenty million purse-snatchers and their allies believe that a right to keep the purse has been established.
I am not thrilled with a prison being a main deportation destination, nor am I pleased that the Administration has blown off some minimal procedural steps in some instances that gave lawfare warriors an opening.
But it has to be established beyond question that Biden’s lawlessness did not create a right that can be challenged only by formal process in each individual case. The lawfare being waged over the specifics of immigration enforcement clearly carries an intent of smuggling in/establishing such a right.
Published in General
I see two intentions. One is a long-term destructive intent on America’s rule of law as described in the concluding remark. This is the Communist-oriented “domestic enemy” at work. The second one is to delay enforcement in an attempt to keep President Trump from establishing a governing record that solidifies the support of the American people with the objective being to influence the 2026 midterm elections to favor Democrats.
I agree. Who thought we’d live to see lawlessness by our judiciary system?
So what happens now?
Your comment @susanquinn and the point of the OP is that the Executive is acting lawfully and the Judiciary is acting unlawfully. Normally, Congressional action would settle the issue but that can be difficult with the Senate filibuster.
It really did not take long.
The proper Constitutional action for unlawful action by POTUS is impeachment, no?
That’s what I remember from reading the guv’mint manual (Constitution).
Great point
I expect the Supreme Court will finally jump in and be explicit about the power of the lower courts. Congress can also act.
Reigning in judge-shopping for expansive policy orders is key but not enough. I still think Congress has to get involved with the objective not to eliminate due process but to clarify where it does and does not apply and how that process is carried out. The vast majority of illegals have no cognizable claim to remain or block deportation. Limiting process to the clearly defined minority that do have judiciable issues so that process does not become a tactic or barrier to all deportations would be the starting point for more good faith interactions and proper balance between the second and third branches.
I do think there has to be enough process to ensure that someone who is mistakenly detained, such as a citizen, is not deported by accident. This doesn’t require a long drawn out process and a court date to be set and appeals etc. Special magistrates could be appointed for this purpose. One hundred of them could probably handle five thousand cases a day.
92% of them are lying about being entitled to asylum. They are supposed to stop in the next, supposedly free country, not go all the way up here and cross illegally. The whole thing is insanity.
This could be done but when the deportation is delayed for due process the person should be detained and confined if confirmed as illegally in America.
Simple answer:
We’re helping El Salvador deal with the TdA gang members, because Venezuela refuses to take them back.
The US didn’t deport Garcia to prison.
The US deported him to his home country.
His home country put him in prison, because he was already a criminal there. The super-prison was established mostly for MS-13 gang members, and Garcia has been determined both in El Salvador and the US, to be a member of MS-13.
To that extent, it’s none of our business.
What a country it’s become if a president is not impeached/removed for unlawful action, but the president who tries to fix it, is?
I would expect all of them to CLAIM to have judiciable issues, and they would demand “due process” to sort that out.
Yes, but Congress needs to authorize spending on some lockup barracks, which it has not done. It has been a problem.
Depends on whether the fix is done unlawfully or not.
Decided by the same people who did nothing about the cause. Brilliant.
It’s a group project that involves all of us.
I remember something like this from Solzenitsyn so I asked Grok.
I think the goal is to say that anything that happens in the current regime is illegitimate. Antonio Gramski mentioned that he wanted men and women to distrust each other, the clerisy and the laity to distrust each other and the common people and the cops to distrust each other. With all that distrust, the Communists could easily conquer a weaker more suspicious society.
Are we seeing something similar?
The whole system is set up to make people be populists and socialists.
3 Whiskey Happy Hour seemed to agree that deportees were entitled to due process due to precedence. And I could not care less if we were talking about a few cases, but this is impractical for the millions of potential cases. Congress has to lay down something quicker for administrative disposition.
I can almost see classifying gotaways (who had no contact with border officials) differently from those granted whatever phony asylum status. The gotaways, like Garcia should have no recourse. Don’t care if they’re gangsters or saints. Didn’t want to show up to defend a phony asylum claim on your court date, no due process. Deportation order, gone.
The idea that we can only expel prosecuted felons is not the bar to clear. For one thing, if prosecutions are plead down from felonies to misdemeanors, lots of dangerous, violent felons will be roaming around. Sanctuary cities won’t prosecute illegals for any felonies, which is a bad answer for the safety of the city.
Certainly under a Republican president there’s no consensus that the executive has sole authority over immigration. But it surely is not the sole province of the judiciary. Yet the district judges are claiming to have that authority.
Simple rule: If the alien in question would not have been allowed in through normal visa process, he can be expelled at any time for no other reason. Garcia: gang member, check. Caught human trafficking, check. Wife beater, check. Criminal record in home country, check. Heck, driving in Tennessee without a license. He’d never have been admitted, shouldn’t have to lift a finger to deport him.
@drbastiat
Well this explains why leftists in America do things that don’t work. Things working isn’t actually the point.
I am beginning to think Greenland might be a good waystation.
I’ve always thought we should set up a factory in the middle of Alaska and stick them up there. This is a better idea. lol
Then Krist Noem is out of luck. She was only carrying $3K and her DHS badge, her driver’s license, house keys and check book when she had her purse snatched today. And this woman is charged with keeping us all safe?
Sadly, our DOJ has been corrupt for a long time. The book I review in this Substack post (Licensed to Lie) takes us back to Ted Stevens being wrongly prosecuted and other famous cases. Our legal system has been rotten to the core for a long time.
It really is. It makes me want to throw up.
Where do we turn when the legal system is this politicized?
Not true. We’re paying the Salvadorans to hold [all of those] deportees in prison.