During a recent interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker, President Trump was posed a question about whether illegal immigrants have the right to a fair legal process. His response was somewhat non-committal.
“I don’t know. That might be the case, but if you’re considering it, the process could involve millions of trials,” he stated on “Meet the Press.”
This isn’t quite sufficient. A more definitive answer would have been that everyone deserves legitimate proceedings before facing criminal penalties. However, deportation isn’t really a penalty; it’s more of an administrative action tied to state sovereignty.
Illegal immigrants don’t possess the same rights to due process as citizens. They can express their cases to immigration officials, but those officials hold the authority to deny their requests and decide on removal. It’s not as if we imprison these individuals; they can leave voluntarily. If they don’t, we act to remove them, much like a landlord would deal with an intruder.
The analogy here is straightforward. If someone breaks into your house, you can’t imprison or harm them without a trial, but you can definitely ask them to leave.
This is also why deportation processes don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law clearly states that during removal proceedings, individuals have the right to legal representation—though at no expense to the government.
Trump’s uncertainty may lend the false impression that illegal aliens are entitled to full due legal processes, a notion that seems impractically challenging to apply. Americans are generally not inclined to overlook the law just because enforcement is complicated.
When Welker pressed further about the presidential obligation to uphold the US Constitution, Trump responded, “I’m not sure. I suppose I would have to say that I have excellent lawyers who clearly ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s rulings.”
However, it’s important to distinguish between what the Supreme Court deems constitutional versus what is actually necessary. The courts recognize that immigration laws are based on a range of standards. The authority to accept or exclude non-citizens rests entirely with Congress and administrative agencies, not the judiciary.
Constitutional and Legal Perspectives
The constitution and related legal frameworks overwhelmingly support the removal of immigrants without a full judicial process. Historical insights bolster this view:
1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention (1787):
“Every society has the right to set criteria for new members. There’s no cause for complaint.”
2. William Laurel, The View of the United States Constitution (2nd edition):
“In a Republic, sovereignty belongs entirely to the people, and only citizens participate in it.”
3. Secretary John Marshall, Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):
“A state’s authority within its territory is exclusive and absolute. It cannot be limited by restrictions imposed externally.”
4. Nishimura Ekiu v. USA (1892):
“Sovereign states possess inherent power to deny entry to foreigners as necessary for self-preservation.”
5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):
“The US government has the unarguable ability to remove foreigners, which is part of its sovereignty.”
6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):
“Self-preservation is the supreme right and duty of the nation.”
Understanding Deportation and Its Justifications
7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):
“The authority to expel foreigners matches the authority to prohibit their entry.”
8. Judge James Idell, Request from the Big Ju Appellant (1799):
“Foreigners arriving in this nation should realize it is an independent country and can enforce its removal laws.”
9. Emer de Vattel, National Law (1797):
“A nation has the right to deny entry to foreigners in order to safeguard its citizens.”
The Jurisdiction of the Courts
10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):
“Congress has the authority to exclude aliens and set entry conditions, independent of judicial interference.”
11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):
“Entering the US is a privilege, not a right, granted under specific conditions.”
12. Fiallov. Bell (1977):
“Legislative power concerning foreign entry is comprehensive and exclusive.”
13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):
“Given the global situation, reinterpreting laws to restrict deportation powers is unwise.”
Clarifying Due Process
14. Rem Moon Singh v. We (1895):
“Decisions regarding non-citizens wishing to remain are made by designated officials, who operate under specific legal authority.”
15. Galvan v. Press (1954):
“Policies on foreign entry and residency are legislative concerns.”
16. Judge Robert Jackson (opposed), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):
“Due process does not grant entry rights to individuals against the will of citizens.”
Understanding Deportation as a Legal Action
17. Turner v. Williams (1904):
“States can act to protect themselves from foreign influences without judicial limitations.”
18. Fong Yue Ting v. US (1893):
“Deportation isn’t a punishment; it’s simply a method of enforcing immigration compliance.”
Trump’s ambiguity concerning immigration laws is misguided. The Constitution, judicial rulings, the Founding Fathers, and common sense all clearly indicate that non-citizens lack an absolute right to remain in the US. Deportation isn’t punitive and therefore isn’t a violation of due process rights. It reflects the exercise of legal sovereignty.
The US must enforce its borders. I stand by that statement.
