I’ve been reading immigration law, trying to get to the bottom of exactly what due process is appropriate, by law, for people who have entered the country without going to a port of entry, if we weren’t operating under the Alien Enemies Act.
In spite of what some people are pushing, it is not a trial by a jury of their peers.
At the moment, I’m in the middle of:
H. Rept. 104-828 – ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996
104th Congress (1995-1996)
The process required to deport an illegal migrant is much less involved that people seem to think. I’m coming across things like:
(I) In general.–Subject
to subclause (III), if the
officer determines that an
alien does not have a credible
fear of persecution, the
officer shall order the alien
removed from the United States
without further hearing or
review.
Ordered removal from the United States.
“Without further hearing or review.”
Based on the determination of the officer.
Under subclause (III):
Review shall be concluded as
expeditiously as possible, to
the maximum extent practicable
within 24 hours, but in no case
later than 7 days after the
date of the determination under
subclause (I).
Not a trial. Not a hearing. Not a board. Not subject to review. Talk to them and unless, in your opinion, they have a compelling reason, off they go. Get it done as quickly as you can.
This is what congress wrote into law, as due process for illegal migrants, during the Clinton administration. There’s more out there so maybe I’ll come across something unexpected, but so far, this is what I’m finding.
If this is the law, and I found it quickly and easily, then much of what we’re seeing litigated is inarguably obstruction and not based in law. However, in order for me to be able to say that with confidence, I’ve got to keep reading.
This is part of a larger research project for me anyway. The whole conversation around the immigration issue seems dishonest. For one, people keep mixing legal immigration with illegal immigration. They bounce back and forth as if they’re the same thing.
They aren’t. I’m all for people migrating to the United States. I don’t care where they come from. If they want to be here, go through vetting and are deemed not to be a threat, and they’re willing to integrate into our society, great!
If they’re coming over illegally, we don’t know who they are or what they plan to do. It doesn’t take many people with ill-intent to harm a large number of people. The federal government is supposed to protect our borders. That’s one of the few things the Constitution actually designated as federal responsbility. Risking the lives of people already living here by allowing people to come in unvetted is a direct violation of the Constitution, and, therefore, a violation of the oath of office all federally-elected public servants take.
I don’t know a single person who is completely opposed to legal immigration. Even President Trump has spoken, multiple times, about the need for legal migration. The corporate media doesn’t talk about that. It makes the argument that he hates immigrants quite a bit weaker.
Something else that is missing from all the talk about immigration. I haven’t heard much talk about limits to migration we should set, as far as how many people should be allowed in during a given time period. How many migrants in a single year is too many? Obviously, there’s has to be a limit. We only have; so many houses or apartments for people to live in, so much food being produced or imported, so many healthcare providers. Our roads can only handle so many cars before congestion gets out of control. For that matter, we only have so many cars for people to drive, and so much fuel, lubricant, coolant and parts to keep those vehicles going.
And so forth.
Which means there is an upward limit where things start to seriously break down. There should be a practical limit, somewhere way below that. What are these limits, exactly?
A rapid increase demand without a commiserate increase in supply makes prices go up. That’s basic economics. There isn’t really a way to counter that if we have a large, fast influx of people without preparation.
Something else I don’t hear talk about – at all in this case. Is there a downside for the nations these people are leaving? There was a video that circulated over a decade ago. A speaker demonstrated the problem with having a million or more immigrants in a single year using gum balls, jars and glasses, while explaining the situation.
He pointed out that the people who migrate here may be the very people who have the get-up-and-go that these nations would need to improve their conditions so people want to stay and improve life for everyone in that nation and that might be the key to helping the largest number of people.
No one is talking about issues like that either. Yes, it’s true that some Central and South American nations really did empty out prisons and asylums and sent their people here. There are accounts of large packs of military-age Chinese men, who travel together, don’t intermingle with other people, even of their own ethnicity and are extremely stand-offish, coming across the border in large numbers (tens of thousands).
All sorts of people coming who are potentially harmful to American people, but the point I’m making is that even those who aren’t harmful might be harming the places they left by leaving.
The issue is so much more complex, and people aren’t talking about all the implications of it.
Instead, they’re getting all riled up about like %5 of the issue and pretending the rest of it doesn’t exist. What I’ve just brought up in the last few paragraphs expands the issue considerably and I have, by no means, addressed all of it.
From there, the question goes back to the question I ask over and over about just about every topic: are the people who are guiding the conversation being dishonest, or are they unaware of what they’d doing?
I ask because if people aren’t even trying to address all elements of a disagreement, are they even interested in solving it, or is the point, as some have suggested, to have ongoing dispute to keep people distracted?
People argue about whether or not illegal migrants are voting or should vote while ignoring the fact that increased population (they don’t even have to be citizens) increases the number of people counted by the census, which is what determines the number of Representatives in the House, which also impacts the number of Electoral College votes a state has. Sanctuary Cities are bolstering the influence their state has, which might explain why they continue to act as sanctuaries, even when their citizens protest.
I’m looking at you New York City and Chicago.
I don’t know. Something doesn’t add up for me. I’ve got more reading to do.
Leave a Reply