Thread by @alexthechick

🧵Arguments as to what level of due process is owed to those who entered the country illegally and/or are remaining in the country illegally after removal orders assume that some level of due process is owed. That fundamental assumption is now being questioned, as was inevitable.

I state, routinely, that due process is nigh to a miracle which has taken centuries for mankind to even approach respecting as it flies in the face of human nature. I also state, routinely, that people should stop running around waving lit flares in rooms full of kerosene.

I say that because those sparks will ignite a firestorm wherein the very concept that people are owed due process at all will be questioned. Again, this is inevitable. This is obvious. And it is very much a fair question.

Why should those who refused and rejected the due process required to get what they wanted, in this case the benefits of residency in the United States, be given one of the benefits, in this case due process on removal, of the very process that those people chose to refuse?

One of the counter arguments, and I'm limiting it to this one for time reasons, is that due process is important in and of itself, no matter the person's initial rejection of it, in order to serve as a limiting principle to governmental power. As such, it should not be waivable.

Now, I find that argument persuasive, what with it being the argument I would make. The counter argument is this - what is the limiting principle on due process then? If due process should not be waivable, then what is to stop people from weaponizing that?

And that? That is an absolutely valid counter argument. Let's look at how reality, that horrible thing, impacts my beautiful, beautiful theory. Why? Because reality will always win and theory must account for that.

Title 8 Chapter 6 of the United States Code sets out the duly passed laws on immigration into the United States. Title 8 Chapter 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets out the rules and regulations implementing USC Title 8.

The process to immigrate is set out. The process to be given to those accused of being in the US in violation of the provisions of Title 8 are set out. While these processes are imperfect, what with being established by humans, they exist.

The provisions of Title 8 of both the USC and the CFR have not been de jure repealed. What is going now is that due process is being weaponized in order to de facto repeal immigration law.

How so? Cloward Piven. Overwhelm the system. I will use 20 million as the number of illegal aliens in the US right now. It is not possible for 20 million people to be given due process in a timely manner, if due process is defined as full hearings and appeal rights.

This is the cold, brutal reality of it. Time, time, time, see what's become of me applies to due process as well. As a result, the cold, brutal reality is that, de facto, the provisions of Title 8 have been repealed. The fight is about which provisions are de facto repealed.

The fight is over whether the due process provisions have been repealed, allowing for expedited removals, or have the provisions as to who receives legal status been repealed, allowing those who entered/remained illegal to be given legal status despite the illegality of entry.

Cold, brutal reality is that something has broken. Either it is due process or it is legal status. The firestorm is upon us. There are absolutely no good answers to this. None. The needle cannot be threaded.

I would hope the dangers here are obvious. If 20 million people are given legal status without there being legislation granting it to them because it's impossible to follow procedures to remove them, then the Cloward Piven strategy has won. And it will be used by everyone.

The concept was proven to work. There is nothing to prevent it from being used by others to get what they want. It would, in fact, be stupid not to use it. Get what you want without having to go through the pesky legislative process just by ignoring it will be the rule.

The dangers of reducing, if not nigh to eliminating, due process remain. This situation is so dire that in this circumstance we must walk back from due process protection will never, ever stop at this situation. There will always be another emergency. Always.

I don't have a solution for this, not even a legislative one. All I have is staring at the fire and saying I told you so. I told people that if they insisted on poking with sticks, those being poked would, at some point, respond back harshly, as they should.

I do not see any perfect ending where theory comes together to craft a beautiful system where everything is unicorns and chocolate. I do see people saying no more, I will not allow due process to be weaponized any more. As they should. May God have mercy on us all. /fin