Chatty Kathy's Take: Trump and Abrego Garcia, a Tense Tango
Left's Clamor for Continuous 'Due Process' Showcased Through Abrego Garcia's Case
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore, is warning trouble for Trump on the horizon, as the President's handling of the Abrego Garcia case undermines due process rights. (Credit: Nicholas Ballasy)
In the corridors of power, the Abrego Garcia saga has become a heated debate. The Democrats, championing freedom, argue that the situation will not bode well for Trump, as he's jeopardizing due process.
During the Biden administration, lines between legal and illegal immigrants began to blur, with the Left redefining all aliens as "noncitizens." Now, they aim to sow confusion between criminal and civil proceedings regarding deportable immigrants to stir opposition against the Trump administration's stance.
Using kilmar Abrego Garcia as their poster child, the Left is demanding "more due process." It's high time to clear up the intended confusion and reveal the extent of due process afforded to immigrants.
Whenever an alien becomes deportable - be it for illegal entry, overstaying a visa, committing a crime, committing fraud, participating in terrorist activities, or for other reasons - ICE charges the alien with grounds of deportability, initiating removal proceedings with the administrative immigration court system housed within the Justice Department.
It's essential to understand that these are civil proceedings, not criminal. Administrative immigration judges, employed by the Justice Department and part of the executive branch, preside over these cases; they are not federal judges as stipulated under the US Constitution's Article III Judiciary.
This misconception has led some to believe that deportable immigrants enjoy the same rights as individuals in a criminal trial, such as being innocent until proven guilty or the right to a taxpayer-funded public defender. However, the removal of a deportable alien is not considered a criminal sentence.
Deportable immigrants do possess some rights within the civil immigration context. Congress, on behalf of the American people, has established numerous avenues for lawful entry for foreigners abroad - through visas to visit, study, work, or reunite with family here, or by applying for refugee protection through the US Refugee Admissions Program.
Once in the US, immigrants can also apply for asylum, work authorization, green cards (permanent immigrant visas), naturalization, and other immigration benefits through US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
What many people may find surprising is that deportable immigrants in immigration court proceedings have a third opportunity to apply for immigration benefits. After an immigration judge rules that an alien is indeed deportable, they can request "relief from deportation" by applying for asylum or a green card with the judge. If successful, ICE's request for removal is denied, and the alien is granted the immigration benefit, remaining in the country - that is, unless the alien commits another deportable offense. The process can be repeated.
Consider Abrego Garcia's case. He entered the US illegally around 2011, neglecting to follow the lawful process available through visas or refugee protection. When he was arrested in a Maryland Home Depot parking lot in 2019, he had already violated due process. While he did request asylum in 2020, his earlier failure to do so within one year of his entry was grounds for denial.
In conclusion, the Left's demands for Abrego Garcia to return to the US and receive additional due process overlook several facts - his initial failure to follow lawful entry processes, his violation of immigration laws following his asylum denial, and the multiple opportunities for applying for immigration benefits and appealing the immigration court's decision. The Abrego Garcia immigration case is not unique, serving as an example of repeated failures to adhere to lawful processes by many immigrants. The Left's misuse of Abrego Garcia as a poster child for due process has raised more concerns about the exploitation of our immigration system.
Sources:
[1] ABA Journal of Immigration and Naturalization Law. (2020). Executive Actions and the Constitution: Rights, Remedies, and Remedies for Immigrants.
[2] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
[3] Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).
- The Abrego Garcia case, concerning a heated debate in politics, has led to opinions that President Trump's administration is jeopardizing due process rights, as it undermines the rights of deportable immigrants in policy-and-legislation.
- The Left, persecuted by the Trump administration's stance, has used kilmar Abrego Garcia as a symbol to demand more due process for immigrants, stirring opposition in general-news and crime-and-justice.
- It's a fact that removal proceedings for deportable immigrants are civil processes, not criminal, with administrative immigration judges presiding over them, unlike federal judges as stipulated under the US Constitution's Article III Judiciary.
- Despite popular misconceptions, deportable immigrants do possess some rights within the civil immigration context, allowing them to apply for asylum, work authorization, green cards, and other immigration benefits through US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
- The left's calls for Abrego Garcia to return to the US and receive additional due process overlook several facts, including his initial failure to follow lawful entry processes, his violation of immigration laws following his asylum denial, and the multiple opportunities for applying for immigration benefits and appealing the immigration court's decision. These issues are not unique to Abrego Garcia, raising concerns about the exploitation of our immigration system and the misuse of individuals as poster children for due process demands.
