web analytics

I Shall Not Be Released

By Mahons On August 22nd, 2019

Freedom from indefinite detention at the will of the Executive …is at the very core of Liberty.

What crazy ass liberal wrote those words? The late Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, a conservative icon.

The Trump Administration has announced a policy that will allow for indefinite detention of children and families pending a determation of asylum and immigration status. While certain migrants, even a majority, may very well deserve deportation this should give those who profess to be against big government pause.

I suspect the policy will be challenged successfully in the Courts. Indefinite Detention runs afoul of our Constitution, International law and Treaties. There has been an erosion of our justice system going back to Gitmo on this issue in which political expediency has triumphed over the rule of law.

Self-professed conservatives would have howled about an overreaching executive a generation ago. But their voices are at best muted in response to the din of the clamoring chorus that wants unbridled government power when the victims dont share their background. Due Process is not a luxury, in is a necessity. We let our government away with too much if we let the government override it.

103 Responses to “I Shall Not Be Released”

  1. //Self-professed conservatives would have howled about an overreaching executive a generation ago.//

    Or even 3 years ago.

  2. How is it ” indefinite detention “?

    They can choose to be released and go home ( or to Mexico, not necessarily the same? ) at any time.

    Many of these people say that they are fleeing a bad situation in their own country, sometimes countries thousands of miles away, but they choose not to seek asylum in Mexico, an option that they had available to them.

  3. It is indefinite because…wait for it…there is no time limit.
    The merit or lack thereof is not the issue. There are due process rights in having these matters adjudicated.

  4. Well, if they choose not to leave in the open door available to them, why is that evidence of bad faith on the part of the government

    What would you propose instead? Release them from detention in order to live where? At whose expense?

  5. Fixing another Obama created problem….

    Right now after you break into our country dragging your family across thousands of miles of Mexico and all the pain and suffering that comes with that journey once you break into the US an turn yourself in which is what they do we by Obama executive fiat after 20 days have a choice….

    We either separate the children from their parents and put them either with relatives here in the state or foster care, or we have to let the whole family free loose into America….

    That is exactly what Obama was doing catch and release after 20 days you were set free and told to comeback for your hearing…. and of course nobody came back.

    Well since Trump has been trying to enforce or border after the 20 days unlike Obama he doesn’t just let them loose. He has been following the Obama Law and after 20 days we’ve been putting the kids with family or foster care but the parents stay locked up in the detention facility where they belong.

    Well this is an outrage first he puts children in cages and now the cruel orange man rips the children from weeping parents arms maybe not to see them again for months the cruel bastard…. That’s been the spin.

    So now we no longer will rip the children from the weeping hands of poor future democrat voters now they will be able to keep their children with them and be a Family until their case is sorted out and no one is traumatised. Now the weeping wonderful parents that dragged their children 1000s of miles risking rape, death, and hunger to break into our country can remain with their mother and father…..

    yes it’s so cruel to keep families together…..

  6. An observation. If these families were from Western Europe this issue would not exist.

    Back to topic shortly.

  7. What would you propose instead? Release them from detention in order to live where? At whose expense?

  8. Phantom – your are confusing your objection to illegal immigration/asylum seekers with the process by how it is adjudicated. It is preventing you from addressing the actual topic.

  9. mahons

    Of ” asylum seekers ” who were released in the past, what percentage never showed up for the hearing?

    Do you think that this is reasonable question to ask when discussing the issue?

  10. Patrick – if it is possible for you to put aside satanic Obama and Christ-like Trump for a minute can you advise whether you support the Executive Branch setting up an indefinite detention policy?

  11. I am addressing the topic directly.

    It’s not indefinite detention by Trump if they have the possibility to get out ( and go home ) anytime they want

  12. Phantom – there is no need to retype what you’ve just typed. If you want instant gratification there are more accommodating websites on the internet.

  13. You aren’t addressing this on a real world basis. This is all point scoring.

    This administration policy is due process

    You are not addressing how many no shows there have been ( super relevant ) or where these guys should go and who should pay for their upkeep. ( also very relevant )

  14. You are trying to change the topic. The relate of asylum seekers into the mist was a flawed policy, but is not the policy on topic.

  15. If people are held indefinitely then it isn’t due process under any real world system of justice.

  16. I’ll happily address things on topic instead of diversions. Why not state that you support or oppose indefinite detention at the discretion of the Executive Branch and then having addressed the topic feel free to introduce other topics?

  17. This is better than the policy of before, we agree on that

    If you now at this late date propose something better that is very wonderful, we await your detailed proposal on what to do with these guys and how to pay for it.

    Anyone can be a critic of the man in the arena. On this for once Trump is correct

  18. We don’t agree. Where do you fall off the Wagon if you support indefinite detention?

    No adjudication? No access to a hearing? Housing in tents? No food or water supplied? Summary execution?

  19. Hopefully this will be struck down quickly. It is contrary to our values and history. Of course, it is just one part of the Trump immigration fiasco. Trump manufactured a problem he cannot solve but causes much pain. What is happening on this is a disgrace foisted on the nation by a sadistic nincompoop.

  20. NY

    What should be the procedures? Where should they stay? What should happen if most don’t show up for hearings? Who should pay for their living expenses?

  21. “They can choose to be released and go home ( or to Mexico, not necessarily the same? ) at any time.”

    It’s a bit like saying you will have indefinite pretrial detention but it isn’t indefinite pretrial detention because you can always get out of it by pleading guilty.

  22. Left-liberals are too dumb to realise that their blocking of any reasonable measures, the kind of measures which would be seen as normal in almost any other country, mean that their opponents will look for other ways to secure the border.

  23. Apparently most show up for their hearings….

    In fiscal year 2018, Department of Justice (DOJ) figures show that 89 percent of all asylum applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a decision on their application. When families and unaccompanied children have access to legal representation, the rate of compliance with immigration court obligations is nearly 98 percent.

    Indefinite detention is wrong, pointless and cruel.

  24. “Left-liberals are too dumb to realise that their blocking of any reasonable measures, the kind of measures which would be seen as normal in almost any other country, mean that their opponents will look for other ways to secure the border.”

    You mean reasonable like going after the companies that employ people illegal? Companies like the Trump Organisation?

  25. Why don’t any of these guys seek asylum in sunny Mexico?

    More free stuff in the US?

    More economic opportunity in the US?

  26. Trump fired his illegals. Very recently.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/428470-trump-organization-fires-at-least-18-undocumented-workers-report

  27. “Why don’t any of these guys seek asylum in sunny Mexico?

    More free stuff in the US?

    More economic opportunity in the US?”

    More likely the latter than the former.

  28. “Trump fired his illegals. Very recently.”

    Which means for most of his Presidency Trump has hired illegals. When will the court cases begin against the Trump organisation for this?

  29. Trump has hired illegals since at least the mid 1970s, when illegal alien Polish construction workers did the demolition work to make way for Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue

    There should be vigorous prosecution of all who hire illegals.

  30. “There should be vigorous prosecution of all who hire illegals.”

    And pretrial confinement of those accused. They can always get out of it by pleading guilty.

  31. What happened to smart Seamus?

  32. He went to the same place reasonable Phantom went.

  33. Going home or to sunny Mexico, the vacation paradise, is not to be compared with confinement in a prison

  34. Come on Seamus, you discover that Trump doesn’t employ wetbacks and you still go after him. Get over this obsession with him.

    You mean reasonable like going after the companies that employ people illegal?

    Maybe that’s reasonable, but there’s also a reasonable argument that it isn’t up to companies to police immigration. Let’s be honest, if every firm in America agreed a crackdown on employing illegals, the Left would have a fit.

    The Left wants more immigration, as much immigration as possible, from wherever, whether legal or illegal. The Left cannot be debated with on this. It is too far gone. The adults will have to get on with finding solutions to the immigration catastrophe without the Left’s help.

  35. “Going home or to sunny Mexico, the vacation paradise, is not to be compared with confinement in a prison”

    In many cases it is worse. Have you seen the state of El Salvador at the moment?

  36. “The Left wants more immigration, as much immigration as possible, from wherever, whether legal or illegal.”

    Those bastards with their sensible economics…

  37. El Salvador people would have passed a long way through Mexico, a place with the same language and similar culture.

    There’s your answer, if they don’t fancy home.

    Maybe less free stuff, though.

  38. “There’s your answer, if they don’t fancy home.”

    And if Mexico says no? You can’t stay?

  39. “Maybe less free stuff, though.”

    Schrödinger’s immigrant: A person who lounges around all day on welfare while simultaneously stealing your job.

  40. Then you can complain about Mexico.

    But these guys aren’t seeking asylum in Mexico.

    Mexico would likely grant it. They’ve said so.

  41. Because they are fleeing violence and want to start a new life. They have a better chance of doing that in the United States than in Mexico.

  42. Because they are fleeing violence and want to start a new life. They have a better chance of doing that in the United States than in Mexico.

    They can send a CV.

  43. So it’s not about asylum at all.

    It’s about a better ( economic ) life.

    Well maybe we should give ” asylum ” to everyone in Central and South America. Most of it that’s not Chile is a mess and always will be a mess.

  44. “So it’s not about asylum at all.

    It’s about a better ( economic ) life.”

    Or it is about both. There is also a danger in Mexico. Many of the asylum seekers waiting processing in Mexico (one of Trump’s new policies) are normally kept in one of the Mexican cities close to the border. Ciudad Juárez in particular. Which is one of the most dangerous cities on the planet.

    Mexico is light years ahead of where it was a few decades ago. But it is no picnic either. And while it is better than the likes of El Salvador or Guatemala it isn’t miles better and there are places where it is as bad. And that is where the Mexican government are sending their asylum seekers.

  45. Phantom has almost established that he doesn’t mind erasing due process rights and expanding arbitrary executive power so long as it is against Hispanics. But he doesn’t want to say it outright.

  46. If they want to seek asylum and live in Mexico, Juarez is the last place they should go.

    I know people who live in Mexico, and who wouldn’t live anywhere else.

  47. Daphne – thanks for reminding people they might want to check the facts.

  48. “I know people who live in Mexico, and who wouldn’t live anywhere else.”

    And? Do any of them live in the likes of Juárez? Or similarly violent cities?

    “If they want to seek asylum and live in Mexico, Juarez is the last place they should go.”

    And you think they have a whole pile of choice in the matter?

  49. Ah, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

  50. “Ah, the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

    Patriotism?

  51. Seamus

    Are you claiming that Mexico is accepting asylum claims and then sending the people to Juarez

    Are you really saying that

  52. Fake Patriotism ( warmongering, or Trumperism ) or shouting racist when cornered are all the last refuge of a scoundrel

  53. You’ve limited your off topic points to South Americans. The new policy applies to all. Whose company are you in by the arguments you’ve been making? What part of our society is the President appealing to with this policy?

  54. Let us review:
    1. You support indefinite detention
    2. You reject due process rights for asylum seekers and immigrants
    3. All your examples are Hispanics.
    Have you been misunderstood?

  55. “Are you claiming that Mexico is accepting asylum claims and then sending the people to Juarez”

    Nope. But they are sending people applying for American asylum to there. And to Tijuana or Nuevo Laredo.

    And Mexico, for all your claiming about accepting the asylum seekers themselves, are massively ill equipped to do so. This NPR report claims there are 48 members of staff dealing with asylum in the entire country.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/06/14/732485182/mexico-is-overwhelmed-by-asylum-claims-as-it-ramps-up-immigration-enforcement

    People are spending months in legal limbo. They either have virtually no help or assistance if they apply for Mexican asylum, while if they apply for American asylum they have to run the gang gauntlet in the cities I’ve already mentioned.

  56. Trump is trying to put a lid on an out of control, entirely unacceptable situation.

    Nothing I have said is off topic. You’ve evaded all the relevant, more specific questions about where these guys should stay and who should pay for it. You think that this is a trick question, but it is anything but that.

    We should not continue to do what we’ve been doing.

    It’s bad for Texas, and other states, bad for America, bad for Mexico, ultimately bad for everybody.

  57. “Trump is trying to put a lid on an out of control, entirely unacceptable situation.”

    What is unacceptable about it?

  58. Read the papers.

  59. “Read the papers.”

    Which one? The Daily Stormer?

  60. Trump relishes the issue, it helps him Rev up his base.

    You’ve tried to change the topic of indefinite detention the whole thread. The facilities were someone would be housed and who should pay for it are different issues.

  61. Seamus

    Freaking out doesn’t help anything.

    Ask Charles, hardly an Allan type. Ask him if the situation on the border is acceptable to him.

    You view this academically, from a remote splendor, its on his door.

  62. I’ll happily state off topic that we have ample facilities that could house people and the cost of detention is something that should be undertaken by the government.

    Now, how about the Executive undertaking a policy of indefinite detention? You favor it?

  63. “Freaking out doesn’t help anything.”

    No one is freaking out. I asked a perfectly reasonable question. You evaded the question and declined to provide a real answer. I made fun of that answer.

    So I ask again – what is unacceptable about it?

  64. The situation on the border is once again not the topic. Frankly, I’d be suprised if Charles favored an indefinite detention policy, of the denial of due process.

  65. Your erroneous tag team insinuations have been demolished.

    Trump stands on the moral high ground here.

  66. I haven’t insinuated anything. I’ve explicitly stated that I’m opposed to indefinite detention and why. You however haven’t at least had the honesty to say you support this policy.

  67. I support the policy, but it is not one of indefinite detention.

    If you’re placed in a jail with no guards and an unlocked front door and can leave any time of your choosing, with free bus tickets home at the front desk, that’s not an indefinite detention either.

  68. There hasn’t been any insinuations of any kind. There is no moral, legal, or economic reasoning behind these detentions. The only factor that I can think of is the colour of the skin of the people being detained.

    And I have asked you why these sorts of things are needed and you have been unable to provide me with any reasons whatsoever. So it remains that the only factor that I can think of is the colour of the skin of the people being detained.

  69. Rachel Maddow has hijacked your account.

    The situation on the border is fine for you, but is not fine to me.

  70. Then you don’t understand either the policy or the implications. Or you do and choose to pretend you dont. And then proceed to just make things up.
    Maybe we make it easier for you, in what circumstances other than immigration do you support indefinite detention imposed solely by the Executive branch?

  71. “If you’re placed in a jail with no guards and an unlocked front door and can leave any time of your choosing, with free bus tickets home at the front desk, that’s not an indefinite detention either.”

    They see being sent back home as a punishment. So what you are saying is they can avoid indefinite detention as long as they accept their punishment. It is exactly like saying that all people will be subject to pretrial confinement and it won’t be indefinite because they can always plead guilty (ie take their punishment).

    “Rachel Maddow has hijacked your account.

    The situation on the border is fine for you, but is not fine to me.”

    And David Duke seems to have hacked yours.

    You say the situation is not fine. Why is not fine?

  72. This is from Daphne’s link

    Recent data shows that asylum seekers continue to appear for immigration court proceedings at high rates. In fiscal year 2018, Department of Justice (DOJ) figures show that 89 percent of all asylum applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a decision on their application. When families and unaccompanied children have access to legal representation, the rate of compliance with immigration court obligations is nearly 98 percent.

    She using a Democrat pro-illegal site that blames everything on Trump and it states at the top of the page the data the use comes from a source that even stopped tracking in Jan 2017,,,,

    This is what DHS said in a hearing in this month

    Since December 21, 2018, DHS has released at least 190,500 border crossers and illegal aliens into the interior of the United States. Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan told Congress this month that those foreign nationals are eventually given work permits that allow them to take U.S. jobs while awaiting their asylum hearings.
    In testimony before Congress this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said that the agency had recently conducted a pilot program with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to test how many recent illegal aliens would show up to their asylum hearings after being released into the U.S.

    The results, an ICE official told Congress, were that about 87 percent of illegal aliens, or almost 9-in-10, recently released by DHS into the U.S. did not show up to their asylum hearings. With illegal aliens not showing up to their scheduled hearings, the ICE official said, the agency is then forced to grapple with attempting to locate and deport each illegal alien, an almost impossible task that strains federal resources.

    If you want it spelled out Mahons 100% of those detained show up for their hearing.

    I wouldn’t detain them I would put them on a bus and send them right back with an instruction book of how to apply for asylum by phone or mail from across the border.

    It is time to repeat the policies of Ike and deport the illegals 1.3 million were put on buses and removed. Do that to the 20-40 million that are here now.

    Then shut all immigration down for a period of 20yrs to allow for assimilation of those in our country time to adapt to american culture.

  73. Why is not fine?

    That is such a completely stupid and insincere a question that it merits no reply.

  74. Patty has hijacked your’s. The situation on the border is not fine with me, but I wouldn’t compound the problem by accepting Indefinite Detention.

  75. “That is such a completely stupid and insincere a question that it merits no reply.”

    It is not. That you have yet again failed to answer the question and are trying to OJ lawyer your way out of answering the question demonstrates nothing more than you have no answer. There is no reason for your hostility to these migrants and asylum seekers. Your reaction is an emotional one, not a facts based one.

  76. Talk to mahons. He doesn’t think that the border is fine.

    Maybe some progress can be made today.

  77. “Talk to mahons. He doesn’t think that the border is fine.”

    I take it that is still a no – you have no answer to the question.

  78. Patrick – the ICE claims have been established as inaccurate. As for IKE, his deportations actually included legals and citizens.

  79. Phantom – I don’t see that you’ve made any progress. You like asking questions, not answering them.

  80. Mahons, I’m a bit late to the discussion, but it does sound a tad bit Stalinesque for the Executive to have indefinite detention rights. Habeas Corpus underpins our rule of law.

    That being said, the people shouldn’t be here in the first place.

  81. Charles – those who should be deported should be deported. Within the bounds of due process.

  82. Freedom from indefinite detention at the will of the Executive …is at the very core of Liberty.

    Do these words as stated by Justice Scalia apply to American citizens within the jurisdiction of the US – and to nobody else? Surely it cannot apply to everybody?

  83. It’s not indefinite detention in any case

    It’s detention until either the case is resolved, and asylum is granted, or when asylum is not granted and the person is deported ( or until the person decides to go home )

    Indefinite detention wouldn’t have either of those end dates. Calling it that is playing with the language

  84. Applying for asylum is legal.

    Why shouldn’t those people seeking asylum be here in the first place? They are going through the process we’ve set by law. We are not talking about illegal crossings or visa over stays (which account for 68% of illegals in the country) – we are talking about people who are legally applying for asylum.

    The core issue of this executive order is the President (aka Stephen Miller’s anti-immigration stance) is attempting to bypass the Flores Agreement that prohibits our government from detaining foreign minors (asylum or illegal entry) past twenty days. It also attempts to circumvent laws that prevent detaining children and families with children in unlicensed facilities that do not meet legal standards. We only have two facilities that meet those standards, both are in Texas and they are woefully unable to meet the amount of families that need to be housed.

    What we need are a massive influx of funds and resources to quickly hire more judges and immigration professionals to clear the unprecedented amount of asylum applicants the courts are currently facing.

    Most of these Central Americans are economic migrants and should probably be denied asylum, those that have legitimate persecution claims should be treated fairly.

    Texas is not suffering in any way, shape or form because of the asylum seekers. I expect Mexico is taking a massive economic hit after agreeing to keep and shelter the majority of people who asked for asylum at our border. Our charities and churches have taken on the burden of caring for those allowed in who are in need of basic shelter and necessities – they could use donations.

    I don’t assume anyone who is alarmed by 750,000 people seeking asylum at our ports of entry to be a racist xenophobe. It is a huge wave of migrants by any count. That said, I don’t think the backlash would be near as strong if it was 750k white Europeans banging at the door.

    Indefinite detention is constitutionally and morally wrong. There are more humane and legal ways to deal with this issue.

  85. Well said Daphne, and welcome back.

  86. Daphne.

    Brilliant as always.

  87. Brilliant Daphne.

    “Do these words as stated by Justice Scalia apply to American citizens within the jurisdiction of the US – and to nobody else? Surely it cannot apply to everybody?”

    Fifth Amendment says “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Not no citizen. No person. It applies to everybody who is in the jurisdiction of the United States, citizen or otherwise.

  88. Mahons, can you think of any situations where you’d support indefinite detention.

    Japanese Americans during WWII. Or what if those Japanese decided in 1941 that the old country was the best, and a majority of them had sort of declared internal war against the US, with kamikaze attacks, sabotage etc. every day.

    I’m not saying ID is justified in the present case, but governments would probably have to reserve that right for extreme situations.

  89. The problem with Japanese internment is that it was in no way justified by security concerns. There may have been a small number who may have posed a security risk. But overwhelmingly it was a racist policy aimed at collective punishment. It was designed to imprison anyone with “one drop of Japanese blood”.

    By comparison there wasn’t the mass detention of all German or Italian Americans during the war. There was the partial detention of people believed to be dangerous.

  90. Noel – no, I can’t. The Japanese Internment was wrong (though upheld by Supreme Court at the time in what is widely considered one of its most famous mistakes). It is in times of crisis when reliance on due process is most important.

  91. Phantom – you are the one playing with words. Indefinite means what it means – no set timetable. People held for an arbitrary time with no recourse.
    Again I’ll note you are happy to ask questions but unhappy to answer them. Considering your arguments, perhaps it is because you have no answers.

  92. There is a timetable – the detention of the individuals who entered the country illegally ends when their case is decided.

    You may not like that process, thinking it too slow, but it’s in no way accurate to say that the detention is “ indefinite “ , subject only to the whim of King Herod Trump.

  93. And we refer to an outcome that has no timetable as….wait, wait…it will come to me…indefinite. I’ll note among the questions you never answered was what other situation do you support indefinite detention? And lastly, asylum seekers have a legal right under our laws and international law to petition for asylum.

  94. It’s not indefinite. The detention ends when the case is decided. That’s the timetable. That is the due process.

    Indefinite detention is when one is detained without a process, where the detention ends when the government says so. You’re free to think that ” catch and release [ after two weeks? ] into the community ” of those who cross the border illegally is better, that’s fine. Everyone has one.

    An accused denied bail before trial isn’t subject to indefinite detention either. I don’t hear that term being used in such cases, even though the detention might be for a long time. Because the process, which is subject to criticism, is that his pre-trial detention ends when he is either convicted, and goes to prison for his crime, or is acquitted, and is set free.

    Indefinite detention did exist in Northern Ireland ( where IRA guys and their loyalist counterparts ) were held indefinitely without trial or in Guantanemo, same thing.

    What the Trump administration is doing here isn’t remotely similar to NI or Gitmo, etc., its not in the same universe.

  95. You are confusing indefinite with never. Indefinite is arbitrary and unaccountable.

    You then proceed to suggest I support a catch and release to change the topic yet again.

    I’ll note for the record you’ve not answered the simple question posed to you.

  96. ATW hasn’t seen this much evasion since Allan wouldn’t answer the question if he thought Hitler was a good painter.

  97. ATW hasn’t seen this much evasion since Allan wouldn’t answer the question if he thought Hitler was a good painter.

    We still like you anyway.

    I support ( actual ) indefinite detention in the case of the Gitmo cutthroats. We love Gitmo.

    I support the Trump initiative to end Catch and Release, a wrong process that has attracted illegal immigrants. He’s trying to actually solve a tough problem that he inherited.

    He does so much that is erratic or wrong, why do you snipe at him when he for once tries to do something that is actually good?

  98. In terms of Gitmo you refer to the prisoners there as cutthroats. Do you have evidence of such crime by any of them? Or do you accept that the people who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and who ran the Iraq war were infallible? As for catch and release replacing a unworkable policy with an unjust one is no solution.

  99. People should be wary of removing judicial safeguards because they just want to, and even more wary when to government does it.

  100. Gitmo has been discussed a thousand times here.

    It’s not evasion to say that I decline the opportunity to have the 1001st ” debate ” on Gitmo.
    No new light is to be shed on that.

  101. My Gitmo comments can be re-read in their glory here

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=40663#comments

    Phantom, on March 21st, 2013 at 10:39 AM Said:
    Gitmo is the best alternative. That’s why it remains open now, in President Obama’s second term.

    In the spirit of generosity, when Muslim terrorists stop their war against civilization, we can consider releasing the Gitmo POWs if thats what we wish to call them.

    As said by me many times, this is not neatly a criminal affair. Civilian trials are wrong in these cases.

  102. You are wrong then for the 1001st time. Not quite in Patrick’s league but close.

  103. I’m not always right…. but I’m never wrong!