I saw a sign posted on Truth Social the other day. At first glance it looked like one of those throw-away lines you see every day on the internet. No doubt there are plenty of creative people out there.
This sign said "If you skip due process coming in, you shouldn't get it going out!"
On reflection, I realized that these 13 words encapsulated my whole viewpoint on the illegal immigration issue. Of course, my view on illegal immigration has always been that the illegal commits a crime when they bypass the legal entry system or overstay a visa. Many tend to believe that illegal immigrants from western hemisphere countries south of the US are the major problem, and in sheer numbers they are since the Biden administration opened the border to bring in people who would eventually "plump up" Democrat party numbers, and who in the short run will keep Democrat states from losing seats in the House of Representatives.
What? You say you didn't know this?
Well, it's true.
There is a lot of conversation around this, however Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution directs that the population count for the House of Representatives includes all residents—not just citizens. This was interpreted to mean every person living in the US at the time of the census.
The Census Bureau explicitly states that “all people (citizens and non-citizens) with a usual residence in the United States are included in the resident population counts”.
Courts have consistently upheld the inclusion of undocumented immigrants—even when there have been political efforts to exclude them, such as during the Trump administration’s attempts around the 2020 Census.
So it seems pretty cut and dried that illegal aliens will be counted in the decennial census, and seats in the House of Representatives will depend not only on how many citizens live in a district, but also on how many people are here on work permits, green cards, student visas, and of course illegal aliens.
We can see that the Democrats who are so gung-ho to grant illegals all the benefits of citizenship are doing so for selfish reasons. The more illegals they have the more seats in the House of Representatives (HOR). The Democrats portray themselves as being for the people, but did you see how fast the largely Democrat residents of Martha’s Vineyard got rid of the illegals sent there from the border? That struck me as progressive snobs who have one of those “In this House” signs, and never read or believed it. All show and no go.
That’s how most progressives are. Make all the proper noises, tell everyone how superior you are, and when it comes time to actually do what you say, nothing. Nada. Zero. You tried, isn’t that enough? Let someone else do the actual work, you had the idea. And so on.
Illegals broke the law coming into the country. Not a serious offense, but an offense just the same. Those of you in Republican districts, communicate to your Congressman and Senator how happy you’d be if illegal entry into the country was a felony.
The Constitution and the law guarantee due process to all people, as documented in the 5th and 14th Amendments, however these guarantees are not unlimited in immigration cases.
Some exceptions to the guarantees of the 5th and 14th Amendments are:
"Entry Fiction" Doctrine
The Supreme Court has held that aliens who are at the border or who are deemed not to have “entered” the US (even if physically present) are entitled to less robust due process protections. In Shaughnessy v. United States (1953) A long-term resident returning from abroad was detained at Ellis Island without a hearing. The Court ruled he had no right to due process while technically at the border and not yet “admitted.”
Expedited Removal
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 235(b) allows DHS officers to remove certain non-citizens without a hearing before an immigration judge. It applies to people apprehended within 100 miles of the border or those who cannot prove they have been in the US for at least 2 years. Courts have upheld expedited removal for non-admitted aliens but have required credible fear interviews if asylum is claimed. In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020) the Supreme Court ruled that a recent border crosser with no formal admission into the US had very limited due process rights.
Mandatory Detention Laws
Immigration and Naturalization Law (INA) § 236(c) states certain categories of non-citizens (e.g., with certain criminal convictions) are subject to mandatory detention without bond during removal proceedings. Detainees can be held without individualized bond hearings for extended periods.
Limits on Judicial Review
Laws such as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 impose strict limits on judicial review of many immigration decisions, including discretionary relief (like cancellation of removal). IIRIRA of 1996 dramatically shifted US immigration policy toward enforcement and restriction, making it easier to deport non-citizens and harder to contest removal or gain legal status. Many of its effects are still central to US immigration law today.
With these exceptions to Constitutional guarantees in mind, it is inconceivable that there could be any argument with deportation of gang members or criminal illegal aliens with little or no judicial review. It is my personal opinion that the Federal District Court Judges who are attempting to stymie the administration’s efforts to deport illegals are breaking or at least defectively interpreting the law.
It’s a real shame when the one thing that separates the US from the rest of the world, our Constitution and laws, are ignored by political judges who, by their actions and willingness to make political decisions rather than honest legal decisions, don’t deserve the high honor of serving on a Federal Court.
Impeachment is too good for them.
We’re grateful to have so many followers. Thank you to everyone who reads Jack’s Substack - One Man’s Opinion. If you are a regular reader. we’d like to ask a favor. If you already don’t have a free or paid subscription, please think about upgrading to one.
Those thirteen words are indeed important. How can any judge professing to know the law not see and uphold this? No kings indeed, the judicial branch in this country believe they are Americas kings. I hold to one true King, the Ord Jesus Christ.
Well said.
The “anti federalists” (the real federalists) warned us that creating a Supreme Court would grow corrupt. Rather than impeach, I’d like to do away with Article III all together and establish a 50 state tribunal court system.