Post by davidsf on Sept 10, 2019 6:26:27 GMT -8
I read this article because of it’s very misleading title:
Supreme Court: Illegal Aliens Have No Due Process Rights In America
as it turns out, it was not an article about some recent SCOTUS decision but a treatment of several opinions handed down by the Court that have consistently established that the open border advocates are drinking their bathwater and obviously have no idea what SCOTUS has handed down.
From the article:
the article goes on to assert:
seems reasonably clear those democrats who want our borders thrown open to all comers are pretty sparse on facts and, in fact, have no discernible basis for insisting on the reasonableness of their desires.
what are your thoughts?
Supreme Court: Illegal Aliens Have No Due Process Rights In America
as it turns out, it was not an article about some recent SCOTUS decision but a treatment of several opinions handed down by the Court that have consistently established that the open border advocates are drinking their bathwater and obviously have no idea what SCOTUS has handed down.
From the article:
Illegal aliens are entitled to considerably less immigration due process than their advocates would have us believe.
And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years:
It is not within the province of the courts to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. “As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.” (Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., Hilton v. Merritt
“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” (Ekiu v. United States)
The United States need only provide an alien with a judicial trial when charging them with a crime and seeking a punitive sentence. (Wong Wing v, United States)
“Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien.” (Knauff v. Shauhnessy)
Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as non-immigrants, or otherwise. (Kleindienst v. Mandel)
What does this all mean? That foreign nationals outside our borders are not owed any due process whatsoever. The United States may exclude them at will. It also means that illegal aliens apprehended within the United States are entitled only to such due process as Congress accords them.
And the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent on this point over the years:
It is not within the province of the courts to order the admission of foreigners who have no formal, legal connection to the United States. “As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.” (Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., Hilton v. Merritt
“It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” (Ekiu v. United States)
The United States need only provide an alien with a judicial trial when charging them with a crime and seeking a punitive sentence. (Wong Wing v, United States)
“Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien.” (Knauff v. Shauhnessy)
Unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no right of entry to the United States as non-immigrants, or otherwise. (Kleindienst v. Mandel)
What does this all mean? That foreign nationals outside our borders are not owed any due process whatsoever. The United States may exclude them at will. It also means that illegal aliens apprehended within the United States are entitled only to such due process as Congress accords them.
the article goes on to assert:
Congress could act to streamline their removal and provide the type of no-hearing framework that the president has suggested. In fact, it has already done so for certain classes of aliens:
What about all of those asylum applications that illegal aliens supposedly have a right to file? As the Supreme Court made clear in INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, asylum is a discretionary form of relief. The United States is not obligated to grant asylum to anyone, even those who clearly qualify for it.
- Using a process called administrative removal, the government may, without any hearing, remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony.
- Similarly, aliens found inadmissible to the United States upon arriving at the border may be repatriated without a hearing, employing a process called expedited removal.
- Aliens who re-enter the U.S. after having been previously deported may also be removed without a hearing, utilizing a process called reinstatement of removal.
What about all of those asylum applications that illegal aliens supposedly have a right to file? As the Supreme Court made clear in INS v. Cardoza Fonseca, asylum is a discretionary form of relief. The United States is not obligated to grant asylum to anyone, even those who clearly qualify for it.
seems reasonably clear those democrats who want our borders thrown open to all comers are pretty sparse on facts and, in fact, have no discernible basis for insisting on the reasonableness of their desires.
what are your thoughts?
