Come on. Really?
There is no excuse for drawing this, paying someone to do it, publishing it, or treating the opinion it represents with anything but contempt. It is the epitome of the simple-minded, reductive, dishonesty that typifies the political cartooning genre, which deserved to die decades ago, as I’ve stated here for years. As for the once thoughtful, fair, analytical friend who posted it to get cheers from his fellow Trump Deranged, his loved ones have reason to worry.
So do those of another FBF, a retired lawyer of note, who posted today a question: “Can anyone recall Trump ever saying anything that was true?” In a sane world, I would have rocketed back, “Sure: ‘Journalists are the enemies of the people.'” Now I just shake my head in the privacy of my office.
Back to the cartoon: if cartoonists qualify as journalists, that one would prove Trump’s point. Trump never said that he wanted to be Pope. He never has indicated that he “loves” Putin. The Canada stuff is trolling and everyone knows it. The comment about upholding the Constitution was in a narrow context regarding how the Constitution should apply to non-citizens (though the enemies of the people have deliberately lied about it). The military parade Trump says he wants to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army (not his birthday) is standard veteran and military appreciation on an appropriate occasion for patriotism. “Tarrifs!” is just buzz-wording without content.
And Trump should want Greenland, as should the U.S. It never hurts to ask….
Cartoonist Mike Lukovich has no shame, but anyone who sees such low-wattage satire and thinks, “Gee, that makes a good point!” should cover his head with a bag…including my poor friend.
Ethics Alarms 
And Trump’s chances of being Pope anyway just took a nosedive when Cardinal Robert Prevost was elected today as Pope Leo XIV. Somehow we ended up with an American Pope, so maybe Trump’s name was bandied about in the first 3 rounds before they settled on Cardinal Prevost…
I did not expect an American to be chosen. Which tells me how much we know about how these things are decided. Well, best wishes and prayers for Pope Leo.
I found the election of Leo XIV interesting. He seems to be ideologically aligned with Pope Francis, but theologically aligned with Pope Benedict XVI, wearing almost the identical bright red shoulder cover and ornately-decorated stole Pope Benedict wore when he was elected.
I thought either Cardinal Tagle or Cardinal Sarah would get the votes.
jvb
“Now I just shake my head in the privacy of my office.”
I challenge that for your FBFs like this one, Trump represents an foundational emotional trope for which they have always needed an incarnation.
The comment about upholding the Constitution was in a narrow context regarding how the Constitution should apply to non-citizens (though the enemies of the people have deliberately lied about it).
And Trump said “I don’t know” when asked if citizens and non-citizens deserve due process….then he said we would have to have millions of trials. So it sounds like to me he’s saying two things here:
He doesn’t know that the constitution gives non-citizens due process, and it would be impossible to give them that due process.
Did Trump say specifically say “I won’t uphold the constitution”? No.
Does Trump appear too incompetent to uphold the constitution? Yes absolutely
Trump’s responses should disqualify him from the office he currently holds since his job is to uphold the constitution.
Mistaking articulation with competence, a favorite misdirection regarding this President. With a few notable exceptions like Madison, Taft and Wilson, Presidents are not Constitutional scholars, and many were not even lawyers. Few of them are versed in the nuances of the Constitution; most faked their knowledge better than Trump, but the job of upholding the Constitution has little to do with explaining it.
I don’t agree. I think at a bare minimum the President should know that all citizens and non-citizens are granted due process. If he’s not aware of this, he shouldn’t be President.
If you take an oath to uphold the constitution, you should be knowledgeable of most of its crucial and important aspects. Being ignorant is never an excuse.
If he IS aware, but unwilling to grant due process to illegal immigrants, then he also shouldn’t be President.
Pam Bondi is also incompetent for not reminding the President that non-citizens deserve due process.
Marissa… go read a book. The question of whether non-citizens have the same rights as citizens in all matters is, as Trump reflects, a gray area needing clarification. The Constitution is like that in a lot of places. You can “disagree” til the cows come home, but it doesn’t make certainty out of what is not yet certain.
The question of whether non-citizens have the same rights as citizens in all matters is, as Trump reflects, a gray area needing clarification.
Nope and wrong. This is specifically about non-citizens receiving due process. This is what Trump was specifically asked about when he said “I don’t know” and it’s what the Garcia case is specially about.
Uh oh, the stylus has hit that same little scratch in your record and is starting to skip again…
Get over Garcia…seriously, get over him. He’s not coming back. He wasn’t supposed to be here, he came here against the law, and he was destined to leave under an Administration that cares more about such things that the previous. And the more we find out about that thug, the stupider you look defending him. Pick a different illegal alien to bleat about his/her Constitutional rights given to all American non-citizens…ANYONE else!!
Show me in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where non-citizens – in this country illegally – receive equal protection, particularly as it applies to the Bill of Rights. Cite the Article and Section. I have my pocket copy sitting right next to me – I honestly do – and I’ll look it up.
Jack is right: SCOTUS is going to have to clearly state where the Constitution comes down on this, because it doesn’t. The best thing to do would be for the House to craft a bill giving illegal aliens defined rights as citizens. Then get that through the Senate and have the President sign it. That would give SCOTUS some actual legislation on which to chew.
Start calling your Representative and Senators.
I’ll give you a hint, because I think the answer to the question lives in the first seven words of the Constitution’s preamble. That’s for whom the Constitution was written, and that’s who it addresses.
“Show me in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where non-citizens – in this country illegally – receive equal protection, particularly as it applies to the Bill of Rights. Cite the Article and Section. I have my pocket copy sitting right next to me – I honestly do – and I’ll look it up.”
The Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, defines the limits of government power. If the Government is limited, it can no more do something against a citizen as it can a non-citizen. So I do not think you will find anything explicit as it pertains to citizens and non-citizens.
Having said that, are non-citizens entitled to a trial by jury in a criminal case? That’s the 6th Amendment. NOTE: the right to a trial by jury is a form of due process. There you go: an equal right to due process between a citizen and non-citizen.
Do they have a right not to incriminate themselves? That’s the 5th Amendment.
Speedy trial? 6th Amendment and again, due process.
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures? 4th Amendment.
I could go on, but I think (hope?) you get the point.
There are all kinds of rights in the Bill of Rights that apply equally to citizens and non-citizens alike (because the right is a limit on the government) and many of them implicate due process.
-Jut
Jut, one question I have in the continual screeching over the deportation of various people is the exact nature of due process. Marissa keeps crying “due process, due process!” I wonder if this is a motte-and-bailey method of argumentation, whereby what she is after is something far more rigorous (and time consuming) than what the established law requires for non-citizens who have entered the country illegally, but when pressed on the details, she’ll retreat either to “I’m not a law expert” or to a much pared down legal process than what she’s really after.
But the real question is: what process is due to a non-citizen that has been identified as having entered the nation illegally? It seems to me that the “due” process is relative to the nature of the crime, where for more process is due for capital crimes than non-capital crimes; for military than non-military; for felonies than misdemeanors, etc. I would presume that someone accused of illegal entry to the United States should have the chance to correct the situation if that accusation is false. But what else is due? I’m not well-versed enough in legal precedent to know what has or has not been established, and I’m trusting Jack and other legal experts here to help me gain clarity in this regard.
“But the real question is: what process is due”
That is the follow-up question and the one no one addresses. They screech about due process, but fail to ask this one.
I do not think it is a motte-and-bailey issue. I think it is simply ignorance. They think “due process” is the end of the inquiry when it is pretty much the beginning of it.
But, yes, when you ask what process is due, you can have a WIDE variety of answers based on any number of factors.
With respect to Garcia, he received a lot of due process. At the end of it, he was determined to be deportable, but he was also granted “withholding of removal,” meaning the immigration court said he would not be deported to El Salvador.
Because he had been granted that relief, he was entitled to due process before that relief was taken away. That is, he should have been notified that they were going to deport him and he should have been given an opportunity to respond.
I think it is beyond question that his due process rights were violated, but his rights in this case were extremely minimal. That is not an excuse, but he is hardly the most sympathetic victim.
-Jut
Garcia may not be the most sympathetic victim, but in all honesty, isn’t defending the rights of even the most despicable of people where the battle needs to be fought?
On the other hand, if the government graces you undeservedly with a stay on deportation, and then removes that stay, are you entitled to respond? To remove the stay without notification seems pretty rude, but in this case it seems he isn’t being deprived of liberty, but rather the gratuitous gift of the government.
Again, this is not my area of expertise, and I’ve not followed the nuances of the case, so I’m at the end of what I can speak intelligently about.
Exactly thank you. Bring him back, give him notice he’s going to be deported to Madagascar or Antartica, let him have his due process in court where he gets the chance to say “No! I’m actually a citizen” or whatever he wants to argue, then deport him. But everyone gets due process, even Charles Manson otherwise there’s no point to have any law.
To state what should be obvious, even to you, the United States has no power to “bring him back” since he’s a citizen of El Salvadore and in an El Salvadore prison.
[From the Moderator: This commenter, Marissa, is banned. I am invoking the Stupidity Rule, which I duly warned her was in play. She has been found guilty of 1) sealioning and 2) being too dim-witted to participate in this forum. The evidence of the former is all over this thread and others. The comment here that I have erased was the final straw (OF MANY) regarding the latter. I had written that her favorite martyr, “Maryland father,” illegal immigrant, domestic abuser, gang member and human trafficker Garcia was “irretrievable because the United States has no power to ‘bring him back’ since he’s a citizen of El Salvadore and in an El Salvadore prison.” Her answer was to repeat a version of her mantra “I don’t agree” and to say, ” Don’t believe that. How about asking?” The ability to ask does not imply power to accomplish. This should be self-evident. For example, I have previously asked Marissa to stop writing the same thing over and over without any factual support. I can’t stop her from doing that by asking, but I can stop myself and other visitors here from wasting their time reading it.
Marisa obeyed the terms of an earlier suspension, so I hold high hopes that she, unlike an earlier banned commenter who has set new records by sending in unauthorized comments post-banning whenever the mood strikes, will accept this action, as she received “due process.” If by any chance she does not, remember that if she comments any replies you make will go to Spam Hell along with her.]
let him have his due process in court where he gets the chance to say “No! I’m actually a citizen”
No, he does not get that chance because he has already had that chance. We are past that. That process is not sue. The only question now is whether he can be deported to El Salvador, not Madagascar or anywhere else.
-Jut
it means he gets due process of law including notice and an opportunity to be heard in any future proceedings
Trump said it would just take too long to give all the illegals due process.
Which is true. It does take too long, since they don’t belong here in the first place. Executing condemned prisoners takes too long. Lawsuits take too long. Etc. All true.
Yes agreed, it sucks but we could hire more immigrant judges.
“Speedy trials” makes me chuckle regarding assholes like Garcia. There is no question that he came to this country illegally, and courts have so held. That it takes so much time, money and process to get rid of people like this makes the concept of “speedy trials” a farce.
But the question that’s still (I believe) unanswered is whether those government limits apply to non-citizens. Maybe I’m too simplistic, but the Constitution was penned by “we the people of the United States”…for them. I don’t think they penned it for “people NOT of the United States.”
I think you are being too simplistic.
For instance, the Constitution says “We the People,” but it was passed and adopted by the States. Nonetheless, the opening words acknowledges that political power comes through the consent of the governed.
Just ask yourself: “Does a non-citizen have a right to a trial in a criminal case?”
If you do not think the Constitution applies to non-citizens, then say “Non-citizens that are accused of crimes are not entitled to a trial.”
Say it out loud if you need to. I think that should be enough tp answer your initial question.
-Jut
government limits apply to non-citizens.
They do! It applies to everyone within the US
Last warning: Invocation of the Stupidity Rule is nearing fast. The Garcia case is an excellent example of what I just explained. He has had plenty of “due process,” and the issue at this point is what constitutes due process when an illegal alien is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. and not where he should be as well as what “facilitate means” in the context of such a case, as well as how specific laws that did not anticipate having to deal with members of murderous foreign gangs applies.
It isn’t that you are so consistently wrong: the problem is that you are always so abjectly certain you are right and that there are no aspects of an issue where you could be enlightened. Smart people don’t think like that, or are at least smart enough not let everyone know they think like that.
He has had plenty of “due process,” and the issue at this point is what constitutes due process when an illegal alien is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. and not where he should be
He was denied due process in this specific case so I’m not sure what “he had plenty” means. Anyway, we’re veering off topic.
1. Anything I write on this blog is by definition on topic.
2. Read the other comments in this thread about what due process the illegal has received.
he wasn’t given due process before he was removed to El Salvador by the government including notice and an opportunity to be heard in court.
I think of it as somewhat analogous to treatment of a burglar. If the police catch him and he’s charged with a crime, he gets whatever due process attaches. If the homeowner catches him and tosses him out the door, there’s his “due process”.
In these types of cases, the US is both the police and the homeowner, so either path may be followed.
In the case of illegal aliens, how are those illegally in the USA identified, is it by name and date of birth or re there other factors used to identify who shouldn’t be in the USA, and if so what are they?
The phrase “how are those illegally in the USA identified” could be read in two ways, so I’ll answer both.
If you mean “How do we determine that an individual in in the US illegally, I would presume that it hinges on the inability, even with thorough research, to present any kind of paperwork to show legal presence–a US birth certificate, a visa, “green card”, whatever.
If you mean, “How do we verify the identity of an individual without such paperwork”, I would presume that the court uses whatever is available, just like with any other trial where the accused’s identity is not fully known–even if it means deporting “John Doe”.
But that’s just my speculation.
–Dwayne