Search the Lounge


« ME/CFS in Parliament | Main | Baruch College Seeks Law Faculty »

June 25, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Enrique Guerra-Pujol (

What will our dear leader do next? Steal an appointment to SCOTUS? (Ooops, he already did that!)


Serious questions:

If I write a letter to the President, from my home country, and ask for asylum in the US, must the President afford my claim due process of law to adjudicate my claim?

If I physically approach the border (but remain outside the US), and shout across the border "I claim asylum in the US," am I entitled to due process to adjudicate my claim?

May the US refuse to allow persons to cross its border and enter the US, or are all persons seeking to cross its border entitled to "due process" to adjudicate any claim of aslylum?

Have the 10,000 unaccompanied minors who recently crossed the border and are in the US been "separated from their parents" by the US?

Is anyone who appeared with one of the 2,000 accompanied minors who recently crossed the border, who is not related to that minor but appeared with that minor at the border, entitled to enter the US and be released into the US for perhaps a period of two years (while awaiting an adjudication of a claim of asylum), to avoid "separation" from the unrelated minor?

How did the prior administration handle these issues?

With all the inflammatory questions posted one should be seeking some clarification.



Blame the Senate. The President did not refuse Garland's nomination a hearing.


one more question:

If a claim for asylum is not based on any particularized condition (e.g., my family is threatened by the level of violence in our country; my son will be recruited into a gang, etc.) then is there a need for a particularized hearing?

In other words, is every citizen of certain countries in Central America entitled to enter the US and remain here indefinitely, per se, and perhaps entitled to vote here as well? Is this, as recently claimed by a prominent politician in Mexico, a "human right"?

Perhaps, instead of just posting specious, shallow and outrageously inflammatory falsehoods, could SOMEONE on this blog discuss issues in a thoughtful and educated manner?

The person who posted above is, in particular, prone to making outrageous and demagogic claims. It is a demeaning condition on what he calls " a law professor blog" to conduct such low level discourse. Is there nothing that your hate and anger does not (in your mind) excuse, sir?

Eric Muller

Because I've only recently resumed posting somewhat regularly here after a lengthy period of silence, people might not recall my policy that I engage in online discussion only with commenters who identify themselves.


Right, so, you want to use your anger to punish people who disagree personally, right?

ENgage in ideas, sir, not vindictiveness (which can be expected from one so obviously enraged and hateful).

Anyone who would post the post above can be expected to behave in the same way that those attacking Amy Wax have behaved. One can't debate ideas (certainly not DISAGREE) with folks of the ilk that would post a blog entry like the one above (and the others posted by this person). It is of a piece with the hate and anger that this person would need an identity to attack. He clearly cannot debate ideas on the merits.

Moreover, as one who runs this blog, Mr. Muller, if you don't wish to allow persons to debate IDEAS then say so. Publish a comment policy, and then require identification.

Otherwise, just chalk up this "policy" as a demand to the right to act vindictively. (For what other purpose do you need to know the identity of a speaker to evaluate the merits of an argument, or, as above, simple, direct and relevant questions?) This is just one more bit of hyperbolic hypocrisy by a so-called "liberal." (Anything but, it seems)

Reflexive anger guy needs to stop

Enough! We all realize you feel self-righteous and endlessly victimized, but could you take your tripe elsewhere? There must be done other place you can yell at your computer screen and attack liberals, besides here. Try breitbart. Or infowars. You’ll fit right in.


Liberals calling for shutting down speech, move over. You've had your wish come true.

Reflexive, you say this commenter must "feel self-righteous and endlessly victimized." Wow. That's a strong statement. Delusional. Totally delusional.

Do you believe that you need to find complete agreement and not a mention of any opposing views here in the FL? Sort of like MSNBC? Does asking questions about Muller's claim that the president "suspended the Due Process Clause" make you enraged?

Talk about anger? You sound very angry that questions have been asked, and that a condescending slam at anonymity on this blog has been challenged. (Reflexive, do you get that?)

Reflexive, you seem too to act out of desire for personal attack, like that directed at Amy Wax ... . "Liberals" today stand for silencing opposing viewpoints: even questions!

Try answering the questions above, Reflexive, and address the real issues.

Or, just satisfy yourself that the recent situation on the border is unprecedented and just like the internment, that the president has "suspended the Due Process Clause" without any push back, and feel free to spew your delusional insults at anyone who dares to question that risible claim.

Muller will like that. It doesn't make any dent on the merits of the argument, though. So far, you and Muller have argued, in support of his claim:

1. No answer is required because the identity of the person asking foundational questions is absent, and
2. The person asking the questions needs to stop challenging the mind set on this blog.

Great arguments! Typical of superior liberal minds.

And, btw, from what I'm hearing, the "liberal" mindset today is that anger and rage are justified emotions to be nurtured today. So, take pride in your rage and don't project!


To be fair, the claim is that the president is arguing to suspend the due process clause.

Just as false and hyperbolic, however. A question is posed about the status of persons who have not yet entered (or, are prevented from entering) the country, who claim asylum.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Off with their heads!!!!


Major media outlets, including the New York Times and the Boston Globe, as well as some well meaning blogs, are mistakenly reporting that President Trump's call to deport illegal immigrants "with no judges or court cases" would deprive them of due process since many such deportations have already occurred without court challenge under several administrations.

These misleading headlines seems to have been written based upon the common misunderstanding that due process always requires a trial-type proceeding with a judge. Due process of law, as the courts have said many times, requires only the process which is due in a particular situation, he reminds his law students.

In many situations in which the Supreme Court and lower courts have held that due process clearly applies, it has gone on to say that it did not require a trial-type hearing before a judge. On the contrary, in some situations, under the Goss principle, the constitutional requirement of due process may be satisfied if the individual is simply given a brief opportunity to reply to the charges against him.

So when the New York Times reports "Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights," and the Boston Globe proclaims that "Trump Calls for Immediate Deportation Without Due Process of People Who 'Invade,'" they are incorrect as a matter of law, even if the errors are inadvertent. Here's why.

President Trump's tweet that "we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came," is being criticized by some who argue that such a procedure would violate due process, and that everyone in the U.S., legally or otherwise, is entitled to due process.

But while even immigrants illegally in the country are entitled to that constitutional protection, due process often does not require a trial-type proceeding presided over by a judge, but rather can be provided by a very brief decision made by a government official.

Indeed, more than 20 years ago, Congress authorized the use of expedited deportations - with "no judges or court cases" - for illegal immigrants apprehended anywhere in the country who could not prove they had been physically present in the country 2 years before their apprehension.

Since then its use has risen considerably, from about 50,000 immigrants in 2004 to 193,000 in 2013; the latter figure representing about 44% of all deportations that year, according to the American Immigration Council.

As the Congressional Research Service has explained, "INA § 235(b)(1) provides that an alien arriving at the U.S. border or a port of entry may be removed from the United States without a hearing or further review if he lacks valid entry documents . . . The expedited removal statute also authorizes . . . DHS to apply this process to aliens inadmissible on the same grounds who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States by immigration authorities, and who have been physically present in the United States for less than two years."

Currently, this expedited removal process is used primarily with regard to "arriving aliens seeking entry into the United States," and to "aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the United States border within 14 days of entering the country, and who have not been admitted or paroled."

Furthermore, as the Washington Post has reported, "the Trump administration is weighing a new policy to dramatically expand the Department of Homeland Security's powers to expedite the deportations of some illegal immigrants. . . . Under the proposal, the agency would be empowered to seek the expedited removal of illegal immigrants apprehended anywhere in the United States who cannot prove they have lived in the country continuously for more than 90 days."

Moreover, as the Post reported, even such a dramatic expansion of this statutorily authorized expedited removal power "would not require congressional approval."

Even under the expedited deportation process, immigrants could still be able to claim a credible fear of persecution or torture. But they would be entitled to appear before a judge on that claim only if an asylum officer determined that the fear was credible.

Needless to say, immigration advocates are critical of the expedited removal process, claiming that many people may have problems providing the proof needed under its guidelines, and that it can easily be abused.

Nevertheless, Trump's suggestion about deporting illegal aliens "with no judges or court cases" is already a reality, and it appears that he has the power to expand it without any additional congressional approval to include illegal immigrants apprehended anywhere in the United States who cannot prove they have lived in the country continuously for more than 90 days.

Thus, unless and until a judge holds that the expansion of the existing program results in a violation of due process, or Congress intervenes, it appears that the president can have his way.


The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad