Years ago, I recall a discussion here on Usenet in which certain states
and localities had stopped cooperating with federal authorities on
immigration matters, ignoring ICE detainers because they weren't court
orders. I questioned why the federal government wasn't obtaining federal
court orders and was told that it can't be done for everybody.

Well, gee, the US Attorney for the central district of California put
together a task force to identify those in custody in jail and prison
who are subject to federal criminal law and who can be charged with
federal felonies. THey obtain federal court orders then serve them at
jails and courthouses and get prisoners transferred into federal
custody, bypassing local sanctuary laws.

It really is possible to do. Furthermore, I'm saying if they are
arrested and indicted on federal criminal charges, then there is no
question that they will have to be provided with due process rights and
public defenders, none of which they receive in immigration courts that
are administrative law courts.

I was right all along. Following the law is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUdjWWp_SQw

The video is a compilation of news stories. The first is from Fox News.
I watched for the clickbait title. That's at 21:50.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-27 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Years ago, I recall a discussion here on Usenet in which certain states
and localities had stopped cooperating with federal authorities on immigration matters, ignoring ICE detainers because they weren't court orders. I questioned why the federal government wasn't obtaining federal court orders and was told that it can't be done for everybody.

Well, gee, the US Attorney for the central district of California put together a task force to identify those in custody in jail and prison
who are subject to federal criminal law and who can be charged with
federal felonies. THey obtain federal court orders then serve them at
jails and courthouses and get prisoners transferred into federal
custody, bypassing local sanctuary laws.

It really is possible to do. Furthermore, I'm saying if they are
arrested and indicted on federal criminal charges, then there is no
question that they will have to be provided with due process rights and public defenders, none of which they receive in immigration courts that
are administrative law courts.

I was right all along. Following the law is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUdjWWp_SQw

The video is a compilation of news stories. The first is from Fox News.
I watched for the clickbait title. That's at 21:50.

"Where there's a will, there's a way!"

Clearly, someone either read your earlier post or, more likely,
independently had a similar thought process to arrive at a theory for
how sanctuary city/state laws could be bypassed. So far, it seems to be working.

I was just watching this video which reports that Greece is finally
arresting migrants with the intent to deport them; asylum claims are NOT
being accepted any more. This is because Greece has been overwhelmed by migrants in recent years. The anchor person asks a former British
director of their border patrol why the same thing can't be done in the
UK and gets a contradictory answer: he admits that it COULD be done but
asserts that it WON'T be done unless a very determined leader (Prime
Minister) steps forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLpc7sInAiY [10 minutes]

In a nutshell, if you have the balls to do something that will get you
called names by the "progressives", like Trump or the Greek leaders, you
can stop illegals from entering and even deport the ones who've already
gotten through. Otherwise, get ready to welcome ever more "migrants".

Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-07-27 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Years ago, I recall a discussion here on Usenet in which certain states
and localities had stopped cooperating with federal authorities on >>immigration matters, ignoring ICE detainers because they weren't court >>orders. I questioned why the federal government wasn't obtaining federal >>court orders and was told that it can't be done for everybody.

Well, gee, the US Attorney for the central district of California put >>together a task force to identify those in custody in jail and prison
who are subject to federal criminal law and who can be charged with
federal felonies. THey obtain federal court orders then serve them at
jails and courthouses and get prisoners transferred into federal
custody, bypassing local sanctuary laws.

It really is possible to do. Furthermore, I'm saying if they are
arrested and indicted on federal criminal charges, then there is no >>question that they will have to be provided with due process rights and >>public defenders, none of which they receive in immigration courts that
are administrative law courts.

I was right all along. Following the law is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUdjWWp_SQw

The video is a compilation of news stories. The first is from Fox News.
I watched for the clickbait title. That's at 21:50.

"Where there's a will, there's a way!"

Clearly, someone either read your earlier post or, more likely,
independently had a similar thought process to arrive at a theory for
how sanctuary city/state laws could be bypassed. So far, it seems to be >working.

I'm trying to make a somewhat different point. I don't buy for a moment
that every single person detained for being an illegal alien and then
quickly deported has received due process or has even been allowed to
notify someone that he's in custody. Also, the Trump administration has
been flat out lying that they are targetting those with a criminal
history when people complying with showing up for appointments are being
taken into custody.

In this case, it appears that by charging felonies, the defendants will
receive due process or at least a hearing establishing that due process
rights weren't violated. This is counter to Trump's instructions to just violate rights and ignore judicial orders.

This US Attorney slowed down the deportation process tremendously. It's
the right thing to do but it's contrary to Trump's orders. He may keep
his job with the emphasis that state and local sanctuary laws do not
apply with federal court orders.

I was just watching this video which reports that Greece is finally
arresting migrants with the intent to deport them; asylum claims are NOT >being accepted any more. This is because Greece has been overwhelmed by >migrants in recent years. The anchor person asks a former British
director of their border patrol why the same thing can't be done in the
UK and gets a contradictory answer: he admits that it COULD be done but >asserts that it WON'T be done unless a very determined leader (Prime >Minister) steps forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLpc7sInAiY [10 minutes]

We've heard for years that Denmark and other small European countries
don't let themselves get overwhelmed with asylum claims by adjudicating
them within a month and giving the claimant legal representation.

Obviously Greece has far more but I think refusing to process claims at
all is wrong.

In a nutshell, if you have the balls to do something that will get you
called names by the "progressives", like Trump or the Greek leaders, you
can stop illegals from entering and even deport the ones who've already >gotten through. Otherwise, get ready to welcome ever more "migrants".

It's hard to blame people from leaving a shithole like Libya.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-27 1:39 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-07-27 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Years ago, I recall a discussion here on Usenet in which certain states
and localities had stopped cooperating with federal authorities on
immigration matters, ignoring ICE detainers because they weren't court
orders. I questioned why the federal government wasn't obtaining federal >>> court orders and was told that it can't be done for everybody.

Well, gee, the US Attorney for the central district of California put
together a task force to identify those in custody in jail and prison
who are subject to federal criminal law and who can be charged with
federal felonies. THey obtain federal court orders then serve them at
jails and courthouses and get prisoners transferred into federal
custody, bypassing local sanctuary laws.

It really is possible to do. Furthermore, I'm saying if they are
arrested and indicted on federal criminal charges, then there is no
question that they will have to be provided with due process rights and
public defenders, none of which they receive in immigration courts that
are administrative law courts.

I was right all along. Following the law is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUdjWWp_SQw

The video is a compilation of news stories. The first is from Fox News.
I watched for the clickbait title. That's at 21:50.

"Where there's a will, there's a way!"

Clearly, someone either read your earlier post or, more likely,
independently had a similar thought process to arrive at a theory for
how sanctuary city/state laws could be bypassed. So far, it seems to be
working.

I'm trying to make a somewhat different point. I don't buy for a moment
that every single person detained for being an illegal alien and then
quickly deported has received due process or has even been allowed to
notify someone that he's in custody. Also, the Trump administration has
been flat out lying that they are targetting those with a criminal
history when people complying with showing up for appointments are being taken into custody.

It sounds to me like you are ignoring that a great many people are in
the US illegally simply by virtue of overstaying a visa or crossing the
border with the help of a coyote, even if they haven't committing any ADDITIONAL crimes after arriving.

I don't pretend to understand American law but isn't Trump's argument
that ANYONE that is in the country illegally can be deported, even if
they haven't committed ADDITIONAL crimes? Does American law entitle such
people to due process before they can be deported or is it perfectly
legal to boot them out WITHOUT any further legal proceedings?

I would agree that the priority for deportations should be on removing
those who have committed felonies BEYOND the original crime of entering illegally (or overstaying a visa) but if they are going to get deported eventually anyway, what's the big problem with some going away a bit
earlier than originally envisioned? I feel like a lot of people who hate
Trump are just hoping to slow down the deportations in the hope that
sufficient delays will keep them in the country past the end of Trump's
term at which point, anything could happen, especially a more liberal Democratic president who will put the brakes on deportations and maybe
even enact another amnesty.

In this case, it appears that by charging felonies, the defendants will receive due process or at least a hearing establishing that due process rights weren't violated. This is counter to Trump's instructions to just violate rights and ignore judicial orders.

This US Attorney slowed down the deportation process tremendously. It's
the right thing to do but it's contrary to Trump's orders. He may keep
his job with the emphasis that state and local sanctuary laws do not
apply with federal court orders.

I was just watching this video which reports that Greece is finally
arresting migrants with the intent to deport them; asylum claims are NOT
being accepted any more. This is because Greece has been overwhelmed by
migrants in recent years. The anchor person asks a former British
director of their border patrol why the same thing can't be done in the
UK and gets a contradictory answer: he admits that it COULD be done but
asserts that it WON'T be done unless a very determined leader (Prime
Minister) steps forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLpc7sInAiY [10 minutes]

We've heard for years that Denmark and other small European countries
don't let themselves get overwhelmed with asylum claims by adjudicating
them within a month and giving the claimant legal representation.

I'm not sure why the UK doesn't do the same. Surely they have plenty of lawyers. Instead, they put the migrants up in posh hotels, lavish money
on them, and push them to the front of the line for things like health
care when native Brits who've been paying taxes for health care all
their lives are delayed in their own efforts to get medical care. That's
simply not right.

Obviously Greece has far more but I think refusing to process claims at
all is wrong.

Yet somehow, even the EU agreed they could do what they're doing despite
a long history of opposing any such thing.

In a nutshell, if you have the balls to do something that will get you
called names by the "progressives", like Trump or the Greek leaders, you
can stop illegals from entering and even deport the ones who've already
gotten through. Otherwise, get ready to welcome ever more "migrants".

It's hard to blame people from leaving a shithole like Libya.

Apparently, most of them aren't actually Libyans but people who are
travelling via Libya because that's the country that is doing the least
to make it difficult to leave. One claim in the video is that some of
the "refugees" are Egyptians who are trying to avoid conscription.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 17:39:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

In a nutshell, if you have the balls to do something that will get you >>called names by the "progressives", like Trump or the Greek leaders, you >>can stop illegals from entering and even deport the ones who've already >>gotten through. Otherwise, get ready to welcome ever more "migrants".

It's hard to blame people from leaving a shithole like Libya.

Obviously - but that doesn't make it my country's obligation to take
them with or without proper immigration process then maintain them in
public housing when they're not working.

My daughter emigrated to the UK a little over 10 years ago and paid a
small fortune in fees along the way to make sure everything was in
order. She was nearly expelled from the UK because someone in the
Canadian passport office misplaced a key document (telling the Brits
that she hadn't filed it despite the fact that my wife had a registry
receipt from the Post Office saying when it was mailed, when it
arrived and who at the Passport Office in PEI had signed for it) - I
had been hearing this saga daily when arriving home from work and
finally in disgust told my wife "Honey - it's time to get the MP's
office involved" - which 48 hours later miraculously got the key
document both found and faxed to the UK authorities.... much to her
relief since it meant she would have also lost her job in Britain.

My point simply is she had to work one helluva lot harder at it than
those who without papers of any sort turn up on the south coast of
England claiming to be refugees (but actually delivered by people
smugglers).

She's now a British citizen and I look forward to seeing her in 2
weeks when our whole family flies to Ontario for my mother in law's
90th birthday.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 15:54:40 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I don't pretend to understand American law but isn't Trump's argument
that ANYONE that is in the country illegally can be deported, even if
they haven't committed ADDITIONAL crimes? Does American law entitle such >people to due process before they can be deported or is it perfectly
legal to boot them out WITHOUT any further legal proceedings?

Of course - you may not have committed a crime when you entered the US
but you do commit one when you overstay your visa. (Just like any
other country though if you enter the country without following the
proper inspection you have probably committed a crime and can be
summarily convicted and deported - they're entitled to a hearing
before deportation but these tend to be prioritized for processing and
usually removal)

The problem of course is that the "people smugglers" are running a
highly profitable business which gives them an incentive to import as
many people as they can.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-27 1:39 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-07-27 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Years ago, I recall a discussion here on Usenet in which certain states >>>>and localities had stopped cooperating with federal authorities on >>>>immigration matters, ignoring ICE detainers because they weren't court >>>>orders. I questioned why the federal government wasn't obtaining federal >>>>court orders and was told that it can't be done for everybody.

Well, gee, the US Attorney for the central district of California put >>>>together a task force to identify those in custody in jail and prison >>>>who are subject to federal criminal law and who can be charged with >>>>federal felonies. THey obtain federal court orders then serve them at >>>>jails and courthouses and get prisoners transferred into federal >>>>custody, bypassing local sanctuary laws.

It really is possible to do. Furthermore, I'm saying if they are >>>>arrested and indicted on federal criminal charges, then there is no >>>>question that they will have to be provided with due process rights and >>>>public defenders, none of which they receive in immigration courts that >>>>are administrative law courts.

I was right all along. Following the law is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUdjWWp_SQw

The video is a compilation of news stories. The first is from Fox News. >>>>I watched for the clickbait title. That's at 21:50.

"Where there's a will, there's a way!"

Clearly, someone either read your earlier post or, more likely, >>>independently had a similar thought process to arrive at a theory for
how sanctuary city/state laws could be bypassed. So far, it seems to be >>>working.

I'm trying to make a somewhat different point. I don't buy for a moment >>that every single person detained for being an illegal alien and then >>quickly deported has received due process or has even been allowed to >>notify someone that he's in custody. Also, the Trump administration has >>been flat out lying that they are targetting those with a criminal
history when people complying with showing up for appointments are being >>taken into custody.

It sounds to me like you are ignoring that a great many people are in
the US illegally simply by virtue of overstaying a visa or crossing the >border with the help of a coyote, even if they haven't committing any >ADDITIONAL crimes after arriving.

Violations of immigration law are generally not crimes, but violations
of administrative law. Immigration court is an administrative court.

In a few cases, there are criminal law violations. The U.S. Attorney in
this case identified those in violation of criminal law and obtrained
judicial orders.

Generally, visa overstay and illegal presense are not crimes. Illegal
presense after a deportation order is a crime.

I don't pretend to understand American law but isn't Trump's argument
that ANYONE that is in the country illegally can be deported, even if
they haven't committed ADDITIONAL crimes? Does American law entitle such >people to due process before they can be deported or is it perfectly
legal to boot them out WITHOUT any further legal proceedings?

Everybody subject to American law has due process rights but Trump has
shredded the Constitution.

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-27 8:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-27 1:39 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-07-27 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Years ago, I recall a discussion here on Usenet in which certain states >>>>> and localities had stopped cooperating with federal authorities on
immigration matters, ignoring ICE detainers because they weren't court >>>>> orders. I questioned why the federal government wasn't obtaining federal >>>>> court orders and was told that it can't be done for everybody.

Well, gee, the US Attorney for the central district of California put >>>>> together a task force to identify those in custody in jail and prison >>>>> who are subject to federal criminal law and who can be charged with
federal felonies. THey obtain federal court orders then serve them at >>>>> jails and courthouses and get prisoners transferred into federal
custody, bypassing local sanctuary laws.

It really is possible to do. Furthermore, I'm saying if they are
arrested and indicted on federal criminal charges, then there is no
question that they will have to be provided with due process rights and >>>>> public defenders, none of which they receive in immigration courts that >>>>> are administrative law courts.

I was right all along. Following the law is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUdjWWp_SQw

The video is a compilation of news stories. The first is from Fox News. >>>>> I watched for the clickbait title. That's at 21:50.

"Where there's a will, there's a way!"

Clearly, someone either read your earlier post or, more likely,
independently had a similar thought process to arrive at a theory for
how sanctuary city/state laws could be bypassed. So far, it seems to be >>>> working.

I'm trying to make a somewhat different point. I don't buy for a moment
that every single person detained for being an illegal alien and then
quickly deported has received due process or has even been allowed to
notify someone that he's in custody. Also, the Trump administration has
been flat out lying that they are targetting those with a criminal
history when people complying with showing up for appointments are being >>> taken into custody.

It sounds to me like you are ignoring that a great many people are in
the US illegally simply by virtue of overstaying a visa or crossing the
border with the help of a coyote, even if they haven't committing any
ADDITIONAL crimes after arriving.

Violations of immigration law are generally not crimes, but violations
of administrative law. Immigration court is an administrative court.

I don't think I'm entirely following your explanation. What are the
possible penalties for violations of administrative law: fines,
imprisonment, deportation? Or merely a good tongue-lashing from the
presiding judge? It seems to me if the penalty is anything but mere
verbal criticism, you've committed a crime, even if you call it an "administrative violation" to make it seem minor.

In a few cases, there are criminal law violations. The U.S. Attorney in
this case identified those in violation of criminal law and obtrained judicial orders.

Generally, visa overstay and illegal presense are not crimes. Illegal presense after a deportation order is a crime.

I don't pretend to understand American law but isn't Trump's argument
that ANYONE that is in the country illegally can be deported, even if
they haven't committed ADDITIONAL crimes? Does American law entitle such
people to due process before they can be deported or is it perfectly
legal to boot them out WITHOUT any further legal proceedings?

Everybody subject to American law has due process rights but Trump has shredded the Constitution.

I'm not going to argue with that - yet - but that may change once you've explained the law to me.

Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-27 8:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-27 1:39 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-07-27 12:04 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Years ago, I recall a discussion here on Usenet in which certain states >>>>>>and localities had stopped cooperating with federal authorities on >>>>>>immigration matters, ignoring ICE detainers because they weren't court >>>>>>orders. I questioned why the federal government wasn't obtaining federal >>>>>>court orders and was told that it can't be done for everybody.

Well, gee, the US Attorney for the central district of California put >>>>>>together a task force to identify those in custody in jail and prison >>>>>>who are subject to federal criminal law and who can be charged with >>>>>>federal felonies. THey obtain federal court orders then serve them at >>>>>>jails and courthouses and get prisoners transferred into federal >>>>>>custody, bypassing local sanctuary laws.

It really is possible to do. Furthermore, I'm saying if they are >>>>>>arrested and indicted on federal criminal charges, then there is no >>>>>>question that they will have to be provided with due process rights and >>>>>>public defenders, none of which they receive in immigration courts that >>>>>>are administrative law courts.

I was right all along. Following the law is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUdjWWp_SQw

The video is a compilation of news stories. The first is from Fox News. >>>>>>I watched for the clickbait title. That's at 21:50.

"Where there's a will, there's a way!"

Clearly, someone either read your earlier post or, more likely, >>>>>independently had a similar thought process to arrive at a theory for >>>>>how sanctuary city/state laws could be bypassed. So far, it seems to be >>>>>working.

I'm trying to make a somewhat different point. I don't buy for a moment >>>>that every single person detained for being an illegal alien and then >>>>quickly deported has received due process or has even been allowed to >>>>notify someone that he's in custody. Also, the Trump administration has >>>>been flat out lying that they are targetting those with a criminal >>>>history when people complying with showing up for appointments are being >>>>taken into custody.

It sounds to me like you are ignoring that a great many people are in
the US illegally simply by virtue of overstaying a visa or crossing the >>>border with the help of a coyote, even if they haven't committing any >>>ADDITIONAL crimes after arriving.

Violations of immigration law are generally not crimes, but violations
of administrative law. Immigration court is an administrative court.

I don't think I'm entirely following your explanation. What are the
possible penalties for violations of administrative law: fines,
imprisonment, deportation? Or merely a good tongue-lashing from the
presiding judge? It seems to me if the penalty is anything but mere
verbal criticism, you've committed a crime, even if you call it an >"administrative violation" to make it seem minor.

Immigration court would order deportation. The detainee isn't entitled
to a lawyer but is entitled to other civil rights. If a crime related to immigration law violation is charged, that must be heard in criminal
court and the defendant gets a lawyer.

In a few cases, there are criminal law violations. The U.S. Attorney in >>this case identified those in violation of criminal law and obtrained >>judicial orders.

Generally, visa overstay and illegal presense are not crimes. Illegal >>presense after a deportation order is a crime.

I don't pretend to understand American law but isn't Trump's argument >>>that ANYONE that is in the country illegally can be deported, even if >>>they haven't committed ADDITIONAL crimes? Does American law entitle such >>>people to due process before they can be deported or is it perfectly >>>legal to boot them out WITHOUT any further legal proceedings?

Everybody subject to American law has due process rights but Trump has >>shredded the Constitution.

I'm not going to argue with that - yet - but that may change once you've >explained the law to me.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)