So Tanq, the issue becomes how do we administer acceptable abbreviated due process without destroying the country, which in my mind is a matter of how quickly we can legally get this done.

I prefer to have it done before the Dems have a chance to regain the WH, and preferably the Pubs can pass a law to help deal with it before they lose control of Congress.

This is not my area of expertise (I'm a retired successful businessman and business consultant, and 78 YO, so not a greenhorn), but holding separate hearings for 20M illegals is not feasible, IMO.

Those here on visas have proof of it. If a policeman legally detains someone and there is a legit question of their immigration status, why not ask for proof of visa? No proof, goodbye.

Another idea. Hold mass hearings, not one on one, and deal with exceptions where they can provide proof they are here legally.

Just spitballing and trying to take down the level of discourse.

(05-02-2025 03:57 PM)TripleA Wrote:  So Tanq, the issue becomes how do we administer acceptable abbreviated due process without destroying the country, which in my mind is a matter of how quickly we can legally get this done.

I prefer to have it done before the Dems have a chance to regain the WH, and preferably the Pubs can pass a law to help deal with it before they lose control of Congress.

This is not my area of expertise (I'm a retired successful businessman and business consultant, and 78 YO, so not a greenhorn), but holding separate hearings for 20M illegals is not feasible, IMO.

Those here on visas have proof of it. If a policeman legally detains someone and there is a legit question of their immigration status, why not ask for proof of visa? No proof, goodbye.

Another idea. Hold mass hearings, not one on one, and deal with exceptions where they can provide proof they are here legally.

Just spitballing and trying to take down the level of discourse.

No problem spitballing.



First, with the 20 million present, estimates are that maybe even close to a third are subject to expedited removal hearings. Old reqts: was 'on arrival' -- defined as within 100 mi of a port of entry and here less than two years.

The issue is whether we prioritize 'baddies', or those easiest to remove.

Id prefer 'baddies'. No one, and I mean no one, literally wants illegal gang members, violence prone, etc here. Soln: can be done solely through EO and executive branch action.

Baddies route:

Pre step 1 -- pass an immigration law that bypasses amnesty for baddies, where if the govt shows with sufficient evidence of bad acts to an immigration judge, the amnesty prong cannot happen.

pre step 2 -- establish a local 'immigration public defender' that can represent baddies in the proceedings below. Staff it well.

Step 1 -- re prioritize an even larger segment of ICE to do 'bad guy stuff'. Background intelligence garnered with the eye towards a future proceeding as evidence in gangs.
Step 2 -- determine centralized and specialized baddie holding facilities. In that immigration district, for those in later steps to receive immgration judge hearings -- dedicate the immigration judges in those districts to the special baddie facilities there.
Step 3 -- once reconned, sweeps. Immediate transport to the centralized detention centers focused on 'baddie detainment and processing'.
Step 4 -- those baddies that are eligible for expedited removal hearings (literally no more than 30 min, by an officer, with a sign off by a supervisor) do those. get those orders in place. If they claim an amnesty, next day have the hearing described in pre-step one. with public defender type present. With a removal order --send them on their way. Maybe 3-7 days soup to nuts.

With the concentration of immig. judges, centralized detentions, and public defender types, even the worst case scenario would probably be 25 days from pickup to deport -- if the case is made with that proceeding that they are in fact 'baddies'

Step 5 -- if members of certain groups, simply use the current terror group designations path. Again, have the evidence of belonging in the group, sufficient to show to the Art 1 judge.

Step 6 -- if outside the Terrorist and ERH stuff, have the detainee in front of the immigration judge in no more than 20 days. Show the gathered evidence, have the defense counsel ahve the ability to rebut the needed presumptions. Amybe need about 4 hours of proceeding time, and about 35 days to do a 'normal' deportation, or maybe less if the 'simple bad acts' is invoked.

That is the outline to remove the real bad ones.

I think the number 20 million is a lot if you think of a hearing being 50 hours of hearing time and a year of wait time.

I think you could shrink that number to maybe 10 million if you loosen the requirements for ERP to say, four years. Those things can be done almost without effort.

I think we need to have a first 'pre-amnesty' determination to limit the flow out of ERP.

as to the remainder, I have zero problem hiring more immigration judges in a major league way. Set up concentrated detention centers with dedicated immigration judges assigned to them to streamline the easier ones out more quickly.

Much of all the above can be done internally to the executive branch.

And yeah, let the ACLU sue over it. Jam the proceedings timewise and direct the DOJ to get quick judicial resolutions. They proved they can do that in some of the ongoing stuff. Most judges would allow fast times to summary judgement -- and these would fit there. Not really any questions of fact, just law.

In short, I can live with abbreviated in time processes. I think the overall structure of the branch can be tuned to squeeze a lot of efficiencies out of it as well.

And honestly, if framed correctly, the reps could very much grab the better political ground in the issue. They really pulled the rug out of the ppolitical framing issue with the populace overall with all the concentration on the AEA and the El Salvador stuff. its easy as sin to frame the Administration's actions there as an overreach -- of literally fundamental right undertones.

If you can do it quickly and preserve due process, that is far more winnable legal battle. It would be a battle that I would support, instead of being a foe of as I am with the AEA direction.

Sorry -- too many words. Gave me too much reign to spitball.

Tanq if what you referenced previously is enough to meet due process in your book, that’s most certainly not all that the media and their handlers (ie Dem party) want/expect and that might be the rub. So when you say due process, perhaps put limited in front of it otherwise - especially with the rest of your framing - it sounds like you’re advocating for the same thing the far left that promulgated all this nonsense continues to demand.

(05-02-2025 05:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Tanq if what you referenced previously is enough to meet due process in your book, that’s most certainly not all that the media and their handlers (ie Dem party) want/expect and that might be the rub.

Im not BSing with my comments above. Nor with my previous comments to you.

The interesting thing is that the same definitional issue seem to permeate the right to some extent.

You can see the right (and you) dismiss the ERH as no due process. It actually is, and forms sufficient due process *for that purpose*.

And each step 'up the ladder' in 8 CFR puts on more and more -- depending on the context.

By the way, I need to thank you. The interaction with you made me crash review this stuff. Id never practice it 'at the front', but it has been invaluable in forming my thoughts on the issue.

I think there are two other 'rubs' at play here. The introduction of the AEA actions forced everyone's attention to that -- which had not even the amount of due process available to ERH. It is an extreme example of detention, deportation, and rendition with *NO* afforded due process. A pretty maximal outlier.

But I think the left now views *any* immigration action as suffering from those extremes, which they dont.

Second, there has been a very tangible uptick of US nationals being swept up and questioned, some even detained, in ICE actions. And there are now news reports of Executive Orders authorizing warrantless searches by ICE. (Im not commenting on that since I havent seen or verified that). People can easily sweep the above accounts into the generalized 'ICE is going lawless' bucket that the AEA can be used to frame the issue with.

Quote:So when you say due process, perhaps put limited in front of it otherwise - especially with the rest of your framing - it sounds like you’re advocating for the same thing the far left that promulgated all this nonsense continues to demand.

Three, my points are on the absence of due process. The first discussion we had was your stance that no due process was needed, based on your knowledge of ERHs. Interestingly enough, I had to convince you that due process was actually aprt of that action - I even linked the ICE Immigration Proceedings Guide stating that, and a District Court that ruled that failure to provide the steps in 8 CFR were a denial of that.

I need to clarify, when I say due process must be afforded, then I am okay with the minimal level in ERHs. And the marginally better amount in the various proceedings in a real hearing. I dont think any progressive (which I am not) would think otherwise with that -- even if limited. and correspondingly I dont think that any progressive would be bad with *any* detainee having the status of lesser applied due process,

My beef is mainly four-fold.

First, there was *NO* inherent due process of any sort applied to AEA detainees. Now, by court order, there might be.

Second, the statement that 'an illegal should not be afforded any due process' is just wrong. Due process of at least a minimal sort *must* be afforded to illegal immigrants -- mainly in the determination if illegal. That is basic even in the text of the 5th and 14th.

Third, the statement that 'since Biden f'ed it up, we must remove due process' is just chilling to me. Yes, Biden f'ed it up. You dont counter that by circumventing the Bill of Rights.

Fourth, I think DHS, through the DOJ, has abjectly lied to at least two courts. And defied the orders of two courts. I find that reprehensible. If further facts come to light that run counter to my opinion, Ill reassess.

Too many words, but I managed to read all of it for a change. I don't think we're actually that far apart.

I never advocated for no due process. You just didn't give any indication (that I caught) that you were up for an abbreviated and/or expedited process.

Frankly, I don't have sympathy for anybody who breaks into our country, and if we made an exception to kick out all their butts ASAP, I would be fine with it...EXCEPT...I would still give them a chance to prove they were legal. I'm just good with it being the arresting authority, IF they have strict standards and adhere to them.

We just can't take forever to fix this, and it has to be fixed. And I mean all 20M or whatever, not just those who commit additional crimes.

(05-02-2025 07:09 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Too many words, but I managed to read all of it for a change. I don't think we're actually that far apart.

I never advocated for no due process. You just didn't give any indication (that I caught) that you were up for an abbreviated and/or expedited process.

Frankly, I don't have sympathy for anybody who breaks into our country, and if we made an exception to kick out all their butts ASAP, I would be fine with it...EXCEPT...I would still give them a chance to prove they were legal. I'm just good with it being the arresting authority, IF they have strict standards and adhere to them.

We just can't take forever to fix this, and it has to be fixed. And I mean all 20M or whatever, not just those who commit additional crimes.

The expedited route for the class of 'just arrived' (as defined above) is fine with me.
Ive never said or contested that it wasnt.

And the concept of aliens overall (not just illegal aliens) being subject to lesser forms of due process is fine with me overall.

The idea that I have been up in arms with is the route through the AEA. And the administration's decree that it need not use *any* form of due process in that route.

I think the administration has lied about the predicate being available to use it, or has put a predicate into the EO that doesnt allow the usage of the statute.

And secondly, I think that the administration's actions using it have circumvented any due process to the deportees, a separate improper act.

And thirdly, I think the administration has lied to the Federal District judges on direct questions, has defied explicit court orders, and has engaged in bad faith stall tactics.

And the DHS has tried to play whack a mole by spiriting putative deportees from Federal Districts that didnt have in place orders barring them from actions or forcing other actions to other facilities in other Districts to try and do an end run against the the other Court's power and orders.

All in all what I would call an absolute shitbird litigator. But this is what I expect from a Trump administration, to be honest.

Now there is a nationwide injunction from the tactics put into place bt the S.D. Texas judge.

When it boils down, I am a true rule of law guy. Trump is ******* around royally with that system, and is something I find disgusting. Play by the rules.

All of your complaints above could be valid. Not of interest to me, other than I don't think the Trump admin should pull any shenanigans or illegal shortcuts, if they are.

My concern is the court process is going to make this thing take forever, if at all, to round everybody up and get them back out of here, and I think, due to that, Biden admin has managed to illegally alter the country for the worst, forever.

Your concerns are procedural. Mine are cultural. I want smart people to figure this out and do it right, but also do it ASAP.

Lawyer IQ test. Brevity is the soul of wit.

(05-02-2025 08:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Lawyer IQ test. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Please note that the top four spots in that graph are all taken by the four female Justices on the Supreme Court. lol

GC, I am 110% sure that's why SK posted it.

(05-02-2025 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 05:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Tanq if what you referenced previously is enough to meet due process in your book, that’s most certainly not all that the media and their handlers (ie Dem party) want/expect and that might be the rub.

Im not BSing with my comments above. Nor with my previous comments to you.

The interesting thing is that the same definitional issue seem to permeate the right to some extent.

You can see the right (and you) dismiss the ERH as no due process. It actually is, and forms sufficient due process *for that purpose*.

And each step 'up the ladder' in 8 CFR puts on more and more -- depending on the context.

By the way, I need to thank you. The interaction with you made me crash review this stuff. Id never practice it 'at the front', but it has been invaluable in forming my thoughts on the issue.

I think there are two other 'rubs' at play here. The introduction of the AEA actions forced everyone's attention to that -- which had not even the amount of due process available to ERH. It is an extreme example of detention, deportation, and rendition with *NO* afforded due process. A pretty maximal outlier.

But I think the left now views *any* immigration action as suffering from those extremes, which they dont.

Second, there has been a very tangible uptick of US nationals being swept up and questioned, some even detained, in ICE actions. And there are now news reports of Executive Orders authorizing warrantless searches by ICE. (Im not commenting on that since I havent seen or verified that). People can easily sweep the above accounts into the generalized 'ICE is going lawless' bucket that the AEA can be used to frame the issue with.

Quote:So when you say due process, perhaps put limited in front of it otherwise - especially with the rest of your framing - it sounds like you’re advocating for the same thing the far left that promulgated all this nonsense continues to demand.

Three, my points are on the absence of due process. The first discussion we had was your stance that no due process was needed, based on your knowledge of ERHs. Interestingly enough, I had to convince you that due process was actually aprt of that action - I even linked the ICE Immigration Proceedings Guide stating that, and a District Court that ruled that failure to provide the steps in 8 CFR were a denial of that.

I need to clarify, when I say due process must be afforded, then I am okay with the minimal level in ERHs. And the marginally better amount in the various proceedings in a real hearing. I dont think any progressive (which I am not) would think otherwise with that -- even if limited. and correspondingly I dont think that any progressive would be bad with *any* detainee having the status of lesser applied due process,

My beef is mainly four-fold.

First, there was *NO* inherent due process of any sort applied to AEA detainees. Now, by court order, there might be.

Second, the statement that 'an illegal should not be afforded any due process' is just wrong. Due process of at least a minimal sort *must* be afforded to illegal immigrants -- mainly in the determination if illegal. That is basic even in the text of the 5th and 14th.

Third, the statement that 'since Biden f'ed it up, we must remove due process' is just chilling to me. Yes, Biden f'ed it up. You dont counter that by circumventing the Bill of Rights.

Fourth, I think DHS, through the DOJ, has abjectly lied to at least two courts. And defied the orders of two courts. I find that reprehensible. If further facts come to light that run counter to my opinion, Ill reassess.

I have actually been consistent on this. I’ve never pressed against some degree of due process - because like you have recently indicated that is achieved in certain circumstances already by the laws on the books. My issue is with the “process for perpetuity” that many advocating for that’s inappropriate based on the law as authorred under the umbrella of the constitution. In what is a matter of people’s opinion, I believe the AEA is viable because of the connections between Maduro and TdA (even if they are nothing but tenuous associations). Maduro didn’t empty the prisons of TdA members out of the goodness of his heart. And we now know various levels of his regime instructed them on both how and where to move to the US. So that’s why I believe the AEA is warranted for known TdA members. And if there are people who think our intelligence and Law apparatus doesn’t know who these people are but then think we can identify every J6 individual as terrorist whether they did anything other than show up for the protest then I really don’t know what to tell those people.

So yes in some cases due process is warranted. Those are asylum seekers, countries where Convention Against Torture (CAT), would be in play, etc. TdA and MS13 in the country illegally where initially detained on entry do not meet these caveats.

(05-02-2025 08:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  GC, I am 110% sure that's why SK posted it.

Duly noted then.

As to the AEA --

I think Judge Rodriguez nailed it.

Quote: the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and
is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.

Quote:the common usage [in the historical record] of “predatory incursion” and, to a lesser degree, “incursion,” referenced a
military force or an organized, armed force entering a territory to destroy property, plunder, and
harm individuals, with a subsequent retreat from that territory.

Quote:the
Proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering the United States as an
organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or other defined geographical area, with the purpose
of plundering or destroying property and lives.

Just use the words as they were used when the law was drafted.

(05-02-2025 08:53 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 05:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Tanq if what you referenced previously is enough to meet due process in your book, that’s most certainly not all that the media and their handlers (ie Dem party) want/expect and that might be the rub.

Im not BSing with my comments above. Nor with my previous comments to you.

The interesting thing is that the same definitional issue seem to permeate the right to some extent.

You can see the right (and you) dismiss the ERH as no due process. It actually is, and forms sufficient due process *for that purpose*.

And each step 'up the ladder' in 8 CFR puts on more and more -- depending on the context.

By the way, I need to thank you. The interaction with you made me crash review this stuff. Id never practice it 'at the front', but it has been invaluable in forming my thoughts on the issue.

I think there are two other 'rubs' at play here. The introduction of the AEA actions forced everyone's attention to that -- which had not even the amount of due process available to ERH. It is an extreme example of detention, deportation, and rendition with *NO* afforded due process. A pretty maximal outlier.

But I think the left now views *any* immigration action as suffering from those extremes, which they dont.

Second, there has been a very tangible uptick of US nationals being swept up and questioned, some even detained, in ICE actions. And there are now news reports of Executive Orders authorizing warrantless searches by ICE. (Im not commenting on that since I havent seen or verified that). People can easily sweep the above accounts into the generalized 'ICE is going lawless' bucket that the AEA can be used to frame the issue with.

Quote:So when you say due process, perhaps put limited in front of it otherwise - especially with the rest of your framing - it sounds like you’re advocating for the same thing the far left that promulgated all this nonsense continues to demand.

Three, my points are on the absence of due process. The first discussion we had was your stance that no due process was needed, based on your knowledge of ERHs. Interestingly enough, I had to convince you that due process was actually aprt of that action - I even linked the ICE Immigration Proceedings Guide stating that, and a District Court that ruled that failure to provide the steps in 8 CFR were a denial of that.

I need to clarify, when I say due process must be afforded, then I am okay with the minimal level in ERHs. And the marginally better amount in the various proceedings in a real hearing. I dont think any progressive (which I am not) would think otherwise with that -- even if limited. and correspondingly I dont think that any progressive would be bad with *any* detainee having the status of lesser applied due process,

My beef is mainly four-fold.

First, there was *NO* inherent due process of any sort applied to AEA detainees. Now, by court order, there might be.

Second, the statement that 'an illegal should not be afforded any due process' is just wrong. Due process of at least a minimal sort *must* be afforded to illegal immigrants -- mainly in the determination if illegal. That is basic even in the text of the 5th and 14th.

Third, the statement that 'since Biden f'ed it up, we must remove due process' is just chilling to me. Yes, Biden f'ed it up. You dont counter that by circumventing the Bill of Rights.

Fourth, I think DHS, through the DOJ, has abjectly lied to at least two courts. And defied the orders of two courts. I find that reprehensible. If further facts come to light that run counter to my opinion, Ill reassess.

I have actually been consistent on this. I’ve never pressed against some degree of due process - because like you have recently indicated that is achieved in certain circumstances already by the laws on the books. My issue is with the “process for perpetuity” that many advocating for that’s inappropriate based on the law as authorred under the umbrella of the constitution. In what is a matter of people’s opinion, I believe the AEA is viable because of the connections between Maduro and TdA (even if they are nothing but tenuous associations). Maduro didn’t empty the prisons of TdA members out of the goodness of his heart. And we now know various levels of his regime instructed them on both how and where to move to the US. So that’s why I believe the AEA is warranted for known TdA members. And if there are people who think our intelligence and Law apparatus doesn’t know who these people are but then think we can identify every J6 individual as terrorist whether they did anything other than show up for the protest then I really don’t know what to tell those people.

So yes in some cases due process is warranted. Those are asylum seekers, countries where Convention Against Torture (CAT), would be in play, etc. TdA and MS13 in the country illegally where initially detained on entry do not meet these caveats.

I dont quite grasp what you mean by 'process in perpetuity'. Could you expand? Thx in advance

(05-02-2025 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to the AEA --

I think Judge Rodriguez nailed it.

Quote: the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and
is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.

Quote:the common usage [in the historical record] of “predatory incursion” and, to a lesser degree, “incursion,” referenced a
military force or an organized, armed force entering a territory to destroy property, plunder, and
harm individuals, with a subsequent retreat from that territory.

Quote:the
Proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering the United States as an
organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or other defined geographical area, with the purpose
of plundering or destroying property and lives.

Just use the words as they were used when the law was drafted.

The Act does not say that. You’re applying your own bias and modern definitions to the text and then saying it applies to the times. I can do the same. Taken from online sources…. This phrase emphasizes the aggressive, looting, and destructive nature of the incursion. It suggests a deliberate and intentional act of plunder and devastation, going beyond simple military raids.

So I guess it could also apply to pirates. The Act gives the executive broad discretion by NOT limiting the application of it to only military invasions. Otherwise predatory incursion wouldn’t be listed because if predatory incursion only applies to militaries then the phrase would be exceedingly redundant and unnecessary.

(05-02-2025 09:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 08:53 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 05:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Tanq if what you referenced previously is enough to meet due process in your book, that’s most certainly not all that the media and their handlers (ie Dem party) want/expect and that might be the rub.

Im not BSing with my comments above. Nor with my previous comments to you.

The interesting thing is that the same definitional issue seem to permeate the right to some extent.

You can see the right (and you) dismiss the ERH as no due process. It actually is, and forms sufficient due process *for that purpose*.

And each step 'up the ladder' in 8 CFR puts on more and more -- depending on the context.

By the way, I need to thank you. The interaction with you made me crash review this stuff. Id never practice it 'at the front', but it has been invaluable in forming my thoughts on the issue.

I think there are two other 'rubs' at play here. The introduction of the AEA actions forced everyone's attention to that -- which had not even the amount of due process available to ERH. It is an extreme example of detention, deportation, and rendition with *NO* afforded due process. A pretty maximal outlier.

But I think the left now views *any* immigration action as suffering from those extremes, which they dont.

Second, there has been a very tangible uptick of US nationals being swept up and questioned, some even detained, in ICE actions. And there are now news reports of Executive Orders authorizing warrantless searches by ICE. (Im not commenting on that since I havent seen or verified that). People can easily sweep the above accounts into the generalized 'ICE is going lawless' bucket that the AEA can be used to frame the issue with.

Quote:So when you say due process, perhaps put limited in front of it otherwise - especially with the rest of your framing - it sounds like you’re advocating for the same thing the far left that promulgated all this nonsense continues to demand.

Three, my points are on the absence of due process. The first discussion we had was your stance that no due process was needed, based on your knowledge of ERHs. Interestingly enough, I had to convince you that due process was actually aprt of that action - I even linked the ICE Immigration Proceedings Guide stating that, and a District Court that ruled that failure to provide the steps in 8 CFR were a denial of that.

I need to clarify, when I say due process must be afforded, then I am okay with the minimal level in ERHs. And the marginally better amount in the various proceedings in a real hearing. I dont think any progressive (which I am not) would think otherwise with that -- even if limited. and correspondingly I dont think that any progressive would be bad with *any* detainee having the status of lesser applied due process,

My beef is mainly four-fold.

First, there was *NO* inherent due process of any sort applied to AEA detainees. Now, by court order, there might be.

Second, the statement that 'an illegal should not be afforded any due process' is just wrong. Due process of at least a minimal sort *must* be afforded to illegal immigrants -- mainly in the determination if illegal. That is basic even in the text of the 5th and 14th.

Third, the statement that 'since Biden f'ed it up, we must remove due process' is just chilling to me. Yes, Biden f'ed it up. You dont counter that by circumventing the Bill of Rights.

Fourth, I think DHS, through the DOJ, has abjectly lied to at least two courts. And defied the orders of two courts. I find that reprehensible. If further facts come to light that run counter to my opinion, Ill reassess.

I have actually been consistent on this. I’ve never pressed against some degree of due process - because like you have recently indicated that is achieved in certain circumstances already by the laws on the books. My issue is with the “process for perpetuity” that many advocating for that’s inappropriate based on the law as authorred under the umbrella of the constitution. In what is a matter of people’s opinion, I believe the AEA is viable because of the connections between Maduro and TdA (even if they are nothing but tenuous associations). Maduro didn’t empty the prisons of TdA members out of the goodness of his heart. And we now know various levels of his regime instructed them on both how and where to move to the US. So that’s why I believe the AEA is warranted for known TdA members. And if there are people who think our intelligence and Law apparatus doesn’t know who these people are but then think we can identify every J6 individual as terrorist whether they did anything other than show up for the protest then I really don’t know what to tell those people.

So yes in some cases due process is warranted. Those are asylum seekers, countries where Convention Against Torture (CAT), would be in play, etc. TdA and MS13 in the country illegally where initially detained on entry do not meet these caveats.

I dont quite grasp what you mean by 'process in perpetuity'. Could you expand? Thx in advance

Redundant, excessive actions to achieve the holy grail of “due process”.

FFS.

He even said “In short”, in one of those walls of words.

Good grief

(05-02-2025 09:52 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to the AEA --

I think Judge Rodriguez nailed it.

Quote: the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and
is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.

Quote:the common usage [in the historical record] of “predatory incursion” and, to a lesser degree, “incursion,” referenced a
military force or an organized, armed force entering a territory to destroy property, plunder, and
harm individuals, with a subsequent retreat from that territory.

Quote:the
Proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering the United States as an
organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or other defined geographical area, with the purpose
of plundering or destroying property and lives.

Just use the words as they were used when the law was drafted.

The Act does not say that. You’re applying your own bias and modern definitions to the text and then saying it applies to the times.

Nope. Im quoting the opinion. Directly.

No bias. None of my application.

And the section detailing the definition comes from the very detailed historical analysis *in the opinion.*

Quote:I can do the same.

If you 'do the same', you would use the *words* IN the opinion. As I did.

But you dont. So you didnt do the same. You simply made up a definition and substituted it for that of the opinion.

Quote: Taken from online sources…. This phrase emphasizes the aggressive, looting, and destructive nature of the incursion. It suggests a deliberate and intentional act of plunder and devastation, going beyond simple military raids.

The better one is not from 'online sources'. But from the actual historical record in the opinion.

Do you wish the link to the opinion, or do you wish to look at it yourself to verify my direct quotes.

Quote:So I guess it could also apply to pirates. The Act gives the executive broad discretion by NOT limiting the application of it to only military invasions. Otherwise predatory incursion wouldn’t be listed because if predatory incursion only applies to militaries then the phrase would be exceedingly redundant and unnecessary.

The historical record made note that the incursions dealt with raids designed to plunder and kill, then retreat. The difference between invasions and incursions being the former was for purposes of occupation, and the latter for purposes of plunder and such. But each act needed to be carried out by an organized force or unit. Specifically an organized force or unit of a nation or state. The historical record made it clear to the court that the terms both required a military or organized force.

The problem with the pirates example is that it would lack the other requirement -- a foreign state of=r government.

Here is the full analysis of the Proclamation to the historical definitions and the facts in the case:

Quote:Based on the plain, ordinary meaning of those terms in the late 1790’s, the Court concludes
that the factual statements do not. The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner
suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States
at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the
nation. Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within
the meaning of “invasion” for purposes of the AEA.

As for “predatory incursion,” the
Proclamation does not describe an armed group of individuals entering the United States as an
organized unit to attack a city, coastal town, or other defined geographical area, with the purpose
of plundering or destroying property and lives. While the Proclamation references that TdA
members have harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not
suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has
threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members. As a result, the Proclamation also
falls short of describing a “predatory incursion” as that concept was understood at the time of the
AEA’s enactment.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...58.0_1.pdf

(05-02-2025 08:53 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I have actually been consistent on this. I’ve never pressed against some degree of due process - because like you have recently indicated that is achieved in certain circumstances already by the laws on the books. My issue is with the “process for perpetuity” that many advocating for that’s inappropriate based on the law as authorred under the umbrella of the constitution. In what is a matter of people’s opinion, I believe the AEA is viable because of the connections between Maduro and TdA (even if they are nothing but tenuous associations). Maduro didn’t empty the prisons of TdA members out of the goodness of his heart. And we now know various levels of his regime instructed them on both how and where to move to the US. So that’s why I believe the AEA is warranted for known TdA members. And if there are people who think our intelligence and Law apparatus doesn’t know who these people are but then think we can identify every J6 individual as terrorist whether they did anything other than show up for the protest then I really don’t know what to tell those people.

So yes in some cases due process is warranted. Those are asylum seekers, countries where Convention Against Torture (CAT), would be in play, etc. TdA and MS13 in the country illegally where initially detained on entry do not meet these caveats.

Not my area of expertise, but I seem good with this.

As I have said before, the issue to me is how long it takes to get everybody back out. The sooner the better, but give all of them the least DP necessary.

Someone who has through. a proceeding resulting in a deportation order has already had due process. The due process argument in that case is like someone who gets convicted of a crime and gets ten years in prison arguing that you can't actually put him/her in prison without another court proceeding subject to due process. If there is a deportation order, the subject has already been afforded due process. Now it is just a matter of carrying out the results of that due process.