“This is a hill they’re willing to die on,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R‑Tenn.) told a Fox News audience. The senator was dumbfounded by the Democrats’ support for returning Abrego Garcia, the man deported from Maryland to an El Salvadorean prison.
Former Trump campaign manager and advisor Kelly Anne Conway, substituting for regular host Sean Hannity, opened the program by showing a picture she explained was “Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen staring affectionally into the eyes of admitted illegal immigrant and accused serial wife abuser and human trafficker with suspected gang ties, who was recently deported to his home country.”
Others claim Garcia is “a loving father and husband,” who “has never been charged with or convicted of a crime in the United States.”
But whether a dangerous criminal or an innocent, hard-working family man, Garcia’s status is hardly the issue. This is about whether our government must follow its written Constitution.
In court filings, the Department of Justice acknowledged that Garcia’s deportation was an “oversight” and “an administrative error,” as it violated a previous court order not to send him back to El Salvador.
A unanimous Supreme Court clarified that the administration is required “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”
My question is: Why are Trump and Republicans willing to die on this hill?
It could kill their future political chances.
I believe in due process, and I vote.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
14 replies on “The Hill to Die On”
One of my friends who voted for Trump expressed distress at the willingness of the Administration, in its efforts to deport those whom it regards as undesirable, to use bad law and to ignore good law. So perhaps the issue will sway enough voters to affect immediate outcomes of elections.
None-the-less, I believe that the vast majority of voters support due process exactly and only when they think that it might prevent the goring of their own oxen. At the least, I may say that far too many Americans imagine that somehow we can afford procedural rights exactly and only to the deserving.
In addition to due process, that “written Constitution” forbids the federal government to regulate immigration (see Article I, Section 9 and Amendment 10), meaning there’s no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”
I’m curious as to just where in Article I, Section 9 that it forbids the Federal government to regulate immigration. I’m inclined to agree that the Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to regulate immigration (which would thus leave it to each State to decide), but I’m not seeing a forbiddance in Art. I, Sec. 9, so what am I missing?
See Paul’s comment below, and note that when you have previously made this odd claim I have labored its problems at greater length. Your horse is dead, ignoring its wounds will not reanimate it, and you should chose another to ride into battle, if you ride into battle at all.
It’s 1809!
Article I — The Legislative Branch — Section 9
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Correct. At any time after 1808, the Constitution could have been amended to create a federal power to regulate immigration.
Feel free to point to where such an amendment has ever been proposed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
You can’t, because that never happened. An activist SCOTUS miracled that power up out of nothing in 1875.
As I explained on the last time that you got onto this weird jag:
“The importation of slaves is plainly a form of immigration; and, while the Federal government was explicitly denied the power to act against that immigration for span, if it would otherwise have had no such power then that explicit denial would have been superfluous. If the Tenth Amendment rendered the issue moot, then a Federal ban on the importation of slaves could not have been imposed after that span.”
(I suggest that the rest of that earlier comment also be read.)
“It can’t be like getting an act of Congress every time you want to export a dangerous violent felon illegal immigrant,” Sen. Mike Lee, R‑Utah, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on “Sunday Morning Futures” on the Fox News Channel.
But that was the DemoSocialist plan from the outset. Flood the nation with millions of illegal aliens (aka: future Dem voters), and overwhelm the justice system beyond its ability to deport them.
Never charged or convicted. But involved in circumstances that meet all the criteria to have been charged and convicted of human trafficking. Let go because the Democrat administrators apparently ordered the police to not enforce the law.
Trump is not obligated to obey the Supreme Court order against using the Alien Enemies Act due to the U.S. system of checks and balances.
The ACLU, Democracy Forward, and ACLU of D.C. brought a case to the Supreme Court, arguing Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, historically applied only during declared wars (e.g., War of 1812, WWI, WWII), was unlawfully used in peacetime to bypass immigration laws.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1227) explicitly allows expedited removal within 100 miles of the border, but the federal government being operated by the Biden cartel had flown a significant number of foreign nationals much deeper into the country, conspiring to undermine the application of US law. Due process is already undermined when the federal government has been complicit in undermining the intent of the law covering the crime being adjudicated.
Article I — The Legislative Branch — Section 9
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Which is a roundabout way of stating that migration of each and every individual into each state is entirely subject to the decision of the state as to whether or not they electively decide that is proper.
But Article IV, Section 2 states that CITIZENS of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. It doesn’t apply to all persons. The individual state cannot go against federal law. Citizens can move from one state to another at will, but non-citizens cannot. Article IV, Section 4 requires the federal government to protect states against invasion. No individual state can decide who can come here, legally or illegally.
Follow the law. Due process is guaranteed in the Constitution.
QED.