logo
Has deporting illegals become illegal?

Has deporting illegals become illegal?

Spectatora day ago

The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US.
Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B.
In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal.
The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches.
Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers
Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up.
Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'.
During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador.
What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant.
I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder.
I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that?
In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Badenoch to call for end to oil and gas windfall tax and ban on new licences
Badenoch to call for end to oil and gas windfall tax and ban on new licences

The Herald Scotland

timean hour ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Badenoch to call for end to oil and gas windfall tax and ban on new licences

Designed to fund interventions to bring down household bills, the policy has been criticised by those in the industry. Speaking at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh on Friday, Mrs Badenoch is expected to tout the oil and gas sector, accusing the UK Government of 'killing' it, claiming 'renewing our party and our country means standing up for our oil and gas industry'. She will add: 'When the oil and gas windfall tax, the energy profits levy, was brought in, the oil price was near a historic high, at the exact time as energy bills for the British people were sky-rocketing. 'But there is no longer a windfall to tax. It has long gone. And the longer this regressive tax on one of our most successful industries remains, the more damaging it becomes. 'Labour have extended and increased this tax. They are killing this industry.' If the measure remains in place to 2030 as intended, Mrs Badenoch will say 'there will be no industry left to tax'. She will add: 'So, today, I say enough. Labour must remove the energy profits levy. Labour must speed up the process of replacing it with a system that rewards success and incentivises investment. 'Because we shouldn't have this energy profits levy at all. 'We must scrap the ban on new licences. 'We must overturn the ban on supporting oil and gas technology exports. Kemi Badenoch will say the energy profits levy should end (PA) 'And we must champion our own industry. 'We must let this great British, great Scottish industry thrive, grow and create jobs – ensuring our energy security for generations to come, driving growth and making this country richer in the process.' Mrs Badenoch will address her first Scottish party conference as leader on Friday while her counterpart north of the border Russell Findlay will deliver his inaugural address on Saturday. Responding to Mrs Badenoch, Simon Francis of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition said her comments were 'out of touch', adding: 'Even with the windfall tax in place, the energy industry made over £115 billion in profits in 2024 alone. 'Meanwhile, average household energy bills remain hundreds and hundreds of pounds higher than they were before the energy crisis started. 'While the Government is right to be consulting on reform of the windfall tax, maintaining a profits levy could help fund home upgrades and a social tariff which would bring down energy bills for the most vulnerable in society.' SNP MSP Kevin Stewart said: 'The Tories wrecked our economy, presided over soaring household bills and ripped Scotland from the EU against our will. 'And now they're lurching further to the right as they haemorrhage votes to Nigel Farage. 'This weekend will be an important reminder of how Westminster has failed Scotland. Only the SNP is offering hope and a brighter future as an independent nation.' Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: 'While the Tories and SNP let energy workers down by failing to plan for the future, Scottish Labour is committed to taking action towards reaching net zero, creating jobs and cutting energy bills. 'The Tories are on the side of oil and gas giants rather than working Scots, but Scottish Labour will work with the UK Government and use devolved powers to deliver a just transition for the industry. 'With Kemi Badenoch desperately attempting to rally the few remaining Scottish Tories, it seems like it won't be long until they can fit all of their MSPs in a single taxi.'

Los Angeles is latest in Trump's calls to use military at protests
Los Angeles is latest in Trump's calls to use military at protests

BBC News

timean hour ago

  • BBC News

Los Angeles is latest in Trump's calls to use military at protests

Donald Trump has long spoken of using military force to suppress protesters demonstrating against his policies and presidency. This week, Los Angeles gave him the some protests against federal immigration sweeps grew chaotic, Trump overrode the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom and activated the state's National Guard – a move former military leaders told the BBC was an escalation of Trump's previous pledges to use troops to quash protests and set a new with Trump's penchant for military optics – he has planned a military parade in Washington, DC on Saturday to mark the Army's 250th anniversary – the president's intervention in Los Angeles has raised fears that he is "politicizing the military," said Major General Randy Manner, US Army Retired."He escalated immediately for reasons that are only political reasons. They are not reasons that are justifiable," said General Manner, who served as the acting vice chief of the National Guard the Trump administration maintains it took over California's National Guard to restore order, and protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers as they conducted sweeps for undocumented immigrants in Los "has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country", Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said at a congressional hearing on also posted that Newsom "was unable to provide protection in a timely manner" for ICE officers."If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now," he wrote on TruthSocial on Wednesday. But Newsom - a Democrat and outspoken critic of Trump - maintained that the state could handle protesters on its own. He called Trump's intervention a "brazen abuse of power" that inflamed a "combustible situation." The protests have continued for nearly a week and Los Angeles police have made hundreds of arrests, mainly for failure to disperse, but also for breaking curfew around downtown Los Angeles, posession of a firearm and assaulting a police officer. Trump's decision to wrest control of the Guard from Newsom goes beyond past tough stances on protests, particularly in states led by the death of George Floyd in 2020 sparked nationwide demonstrations for police reform and racial justice, Trump called for a militarized had criticised his death, which occurred in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota. But as protests broke out and some devolved into looting, Trump later called for Democratic governors to get "much tougher", warning "the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done, and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests."When protesters marched in Washington, DC, Trump tweeted that they would "have been greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen" if they had breached the White the DC protests, National Guard helicopters flew low over crowds to disperse them. A subsequent investigation by the US Army concluded the incident was a misuse of military medical aircraft, the Washington Post reported."What we're seeing in Los Angeles is a perfect storm," said John Acevedo, an associate dean at Emory Law School who studies free speech and protests in the US. "There are protesters, they are violent. A perfect setup situation for President Trump, where he can use his goal of using troops against protesters."The president does have the power to federalise National Guard troops, and will do so when they are needed overseas or states request additional assistance. But under normal domestic circumstances, the request for their assistance starts at the local level. The governor then can activate the state's Guard, or ask the president for federal presidents have not taken control of a state's National Guard against a governor's wishes since the Civil Rights era, when President Dwight Eisenhower intervened to aid school integration in Arkansas, and President Lyndon B Johnson later called on Alabama's troops to protect demonstrators."We have, over the decades, developed statutes and regulations and protocols that govern how we handle civil disturbances for very solid reasons," said Major General (Ret.) William Enyart, a former congressman who also led the Illinois National Guard from 2007 to chose to "ignore all that hard-earned experience," General Enyart saw the president's actions in Los Angeles as "political theatre" and referenced a small number of protesters who burned Waymo self-driving cars over the weekend. "Trump is the master of reality television. He understands this is great TV. What is more exciting than seeing a couple self-driving cars burning in the street?" said General Enyart.

Badenoch to call for end to oil and gas windfall tax and ban on new licences
Badenoch to call for end to oil and gas windfall tax and ban on new licences

Powys County Times

time2 hours ago

  • Powys County Times

Badenoch to call for end to oil and gas windfall tax and ban on new licences

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch is set to call for an end to the windfall tax on oil and gas companies and the ban on new licences. The energy profits levy was put in place under the previous Conservative government but extended when Labour entered power. Designed to fund interventions to bring down household bills, the policy has been criticised by those in the industry. Speaking at the Scottish Conservative conference in Edinburgh on Friday, Mrs Badenoch is expected to tout the oil and gas sector, accusing the UK Government of 'killing' it, claiming 'renewing our party and our country means standing up for our oil and gas industry'. She will add: 'When the oil and gas windfall tax, the energy profits levy, was brought in, the oil price was near a historic high, at the exact time as energy bills for the British people were sky-rocketing. 'But there is no longer a windfall to tax. It has long gone. And the longer this regressive tax on one of our most successful industries remains, the more damaging it becomes. 'Labour have extended and increased this tax. They are killing this industry.' If the measure remains in place to 2030 as intended, Mrs Badenoch will say 'there will be no industry left to tax'. She will add: 'So, today, I say enough. Labour must remove the energy profits levy. Labour must speed up the process of replacing it with a system that rewards success and incentivises investment. 'Because we shouldn't have this energy profits levy at all. 'We must scrap the ban on new licences. 'We must overturn the ban on supporting oil and gas technology exports. 'And we must champion our own industry. 'We must let this great British, great Scottish industry thrive, grow and create jobs – ensuring our energy security for generations to come, driving growth and making this country richer in the process.' Mrs Badenoch will address her first Scottish party conference as leader on Friday while her counterpart north of the border Russell Findlay will deliver his inaugural address on Saturday. Responding to Mrs Badenoch, Simon Francis of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition said her comments were 'out of touch', adding: 'Even with the windfall tax in place, the energy industry made over £115 billion in profits in 2024 alone. 'Meanwhile, average household energy bills remain hundreds and hundreds of pounds higher than they were before the energy crisis started. 'While the Government is right to be consulting on reform of the windfall tax, maintaining a profits levy could help fund home upgrades and a social tariff which would bring down energy bills for the most vulnerable in society.' SNP MSP Kevin Stewart said: 'The Tories wrecked our economy, presided over soaring household bills and ripped Scotland from the EU against our will. 'And now they're lurching further to the right as they haemorrhage votes to Nigel Farage. 'This weekend will be an important reminder of how Westminster has failed Scotland. Only the SNP is offering hope and a brighter future as an independent nation.' Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: 'While the Tories and SNP let energy workers down by failing to plan for the future, Scottish Labour is committed to taking action towards reaching net zero, creating jobs and cutting energy bills. 'The Tories are on the side of oil and gas giants rather than working Scots, but Scottish Labour will work with the UK Government and use devolved powers to deliver a just transition for the industry. 'With Kemi Badenoch desperately attempting to rally the few remaining Scottish Tories, it seems like it won't be long until they can fit all of their MSPs in a single taxi.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store