Comments 1 - 25 of 25 Search these comments
A lot of libtards are pushing the idea there needs to be a crime or something needs to be "Proven" beyond a reasonable doubt to have a deportation.
Why is Sudan willing to take the deportees? Do they need slaves?
It's worth noting that 3 of the 4 womyn were dissenters in the SCOTUS deportation decision. Please don't nominate any more womyn, we already have Roberts!
The Trump administration is gonna fine illegals that overstay their deportation orders $1k per day. No notice needed. Then they are gonna make it retroactive for 5 years. Seize all property etc.
DHS says use the self deportation tool before it is too late.
https://www.newsmax.com/us/illegals-migrants-deportation/2025/04/08/id/1206056/
Go after the BIG employers.
They had to break down a locked room at the factory to get the illegals.
Syllabus
Argued December 5, 1951
Decided March 10, 1952*
342 U.S. 580
Syllabus
1. The Alien Registration Act of 1940, so far as it authorizes the deportation of a legally resident alien because of membership in the Communist Party, even though such membership terminated before enactment of the Act, was within the power of Congress under the Federal Constitution. Pp. 342 U. S. 581-596.
(a) The Act does not deprive the alien of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 584-591.
(1) The power to deport aliens is inherent in every sovereign state. Pp. 342 U. S. 587-588.
(2) The policy toward aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the Government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference, and it cannot be said that the power has been so unreasonably or harshly exercised by Congress in this Act as to warrant judicial interference. Pp. 342 U. S. 588-590.
(3) The fact that the Act inflicts severe hardship on the individuals affected does not render it violative of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 342 U. S. 590-591.
(b) The Act does not abridge the aliens' freedoms of speech and assembly in contravention of the First Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 591-592.
(c) The Act does not contravene the provision of Art. I, § 9 of the Constitution forbidding ex post facto laws. Pp. 342 U. S. 593-596.
2. Procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not mandatory as to proceedings which were instituted before the effective date of the Act. P. 583, n 4.
Page 342 U. S. 581
3. One who consented to the same individual acting both as presiding officer and examining officer in administrative proceedings is without standing, on judicial review, to raise the objection that he was thereby denied procedural due process. P. 583, n 4.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/