Paul and I recently disagreed on the scope of the Alien Enemies Act, and I don't propose to reopen that issue here. I agree that, under the circumstances here, illegal immigrants are entitled to a hearing even if the Act applies. I think the Supreme Court cases on the Act dealt with detention and expulsion of alien enemies during a war, and in those cases the president has war powers as well as commander in chief powers. The Supreme Court has held that the president's war powers under the Act empowered him to detain and expel enemy aliens without a judicial hearing. To the extent the Act applies when there is no declared or actual war, the president has only his commander in chief powers and his power to enforce immigration laws. While the case has not matured to the extent we can determine whether the Supreme Court believes the president has greater Alien Enemies Act powers during war times than he does during times of peace, that seems to be where the Court is heading. In examining Lincoln's constitutional powers during the Civil War, I have argued that a president's war powers augment his commander in chief powers during war times, and I think that principle applies here. Obviously, there would be no augmentation if there is no war. Jim Dueholm
Well, I should have put scare quotes around "mistakes" to indicate my sarcasm. But you are right, it was intentional and that is the problem I would like to see addressed.
President Obama lectured his leftist minions that his powers over immigration were limited by law, and then he made the decision to overstep those bounds knowing full well that the glacial process of the judiciary would never be able to remediate the violation. Hey, they've been here 10 years, they paid taxes, they have rights.
Biden (or his puppet-masters) put that strategy on steroids, deliberately refusing to enforce existing law and here we sit, faced with the defending the worthy principle of due process for every individual violator, when doing so means that the deportation of millions will not happen.
There is no number of lawyers you can hire to process that backlog in a reasonable period of time - nor would we want to pay their fees.
So, if we respect due process, must we concede Biden's lawlessness? I do not want to depart any individual to a Salvadoran prison who is not an MS-13 gang member, but does that mean we cannot relocate them to, say, Guantanamo, or a neighboring country from where they originated - and where they should have applied for asylum in the first place?
When we call these people "immigrants," I think we already have conceded the issue. They are not immigrants, they are people who have deliberately avoided the legal immigration process. How do we fight back?
Trump will find a way to blow an issue that 80 percent of the country agrees with.
Paul and I recently disagreed on the scope of the Alien Enemies Act, and I don't propose to reopen that issue here. I agree that, under the circumstances here, illegal immigrants are entitled to a hearing even if the Act applies. I think the Supreme Court cases on the Act dealt with detention and expulsion of alien enemies during a war, and in those cases the president has war powers as well as commander in chief powers. The Supreme Court has held that the president's war powers under the Act empowered him to detain and expel enemy aliens without a judicial hearing. To the extent the Act applies when there is no declared or actual war, the president has only his commander in chief powers and his power to enforce immigration laws. While the case has not matured to the extent we can determine whether the Supreme Court believes the president has greater Alien Enemies Act powers during war times than he does during times of peace, that seems to be where the Court is heading. In examining Lincoln's constitutional powers during the Civil War, I have argued that a president's war powers augment his commander in chief powers during war times, and I think that principle applies here. Obviously, there would be no augmentation if there is no war. Jim Dueholm
"Everyone knows the government makes mistakes"... in this case, approximately 10 million.
A lot of those 10 million weren't mistakes. They were intentional and knowing.
Well, I should have put scare quotes around "mistakes" to indicate my sarcasm. But you are right, it was intentional and that is the problem I would like to see addressed.
President Obama lectured his leftist minions that his powers over immigration were limited by law, and then he made the decision to overstep those bounds knowing full well that the glacial process of the judiciary would never be able to remediate the violation. Hey, they've been here 10 years, they paid taxes, they have rights.
Biden (or his puppet-masters) put that strategy on steroids, deliberately refusing to enforce existing law and here we sit, faced with the defending the worthy principle of due process for every individual violator, when doing so means that the deportation of millions will not happen.
There is no number of lawyers you can hire to process that backlog in a reasonable period of time - nor would we want to pay their fees.
So, if we respect due process, must we concede Biden's lawlessness? I do not want to depart any individual to a Salvadoran prison who is not an MS-13 gang member, but does that mean we cannot relocate them to, say, Guantanamo, or a neighboring country from where they originated - and where they should have applied for asylum in the first place?
When we call these people "immigrants," I think we already have conceded the issue. They are not immigrants, they are people who have deliberately avoided the legal immigration process. How do we fight back?