It doesn’t. BTW, the Constitution was written by immigrants! And where does the 20,000,000 figure come from? How do they determine this number? By asking them? From the census? The whole issue is nothing but fabricated propaganda.
For clarification purposes, it helps to have context.
Immigrants walking over the border, up til 2 years after arrival, can be sent back without being brought before an administrative, immigration court. For those requesting assylum or past the 2 yr threshold, the administrative hearing addresses substantive issues of immigration and the special circumstances of the individual. There are inherent features of “due process” before that Court (hearing officer is a hired, administrative judge-must pass the bar). Notice, impartial, (right-to-Counsel is not here) etc… must be invoked, raised before that Court and some protections can be waived.
Habeus Corpus petitions, not normal for immigration case, are brought before Federal Magistrate Judges and those “due process” features are different because those are NOT administrative processes. The purpose of these hearings is to be released. However, those courts prefer and generally resolve with motion-practice.
Neither of the civil hearings are called “trials”; terminology matters sometimes and some types of due process-challenges are tricky depending on when they are raised.
Thanks for the breakdown, SFsergio. You’re right—immigration law is a procedural maze, and context matters. But here’s the core issue: even in administrative settings, due process still applies. Whether it’s limited or layered, it’s not optional—and invoking a wartime statute to bypass any of it is exactly where the line gets crossed.
And an 18th Century statute to boot.
Agreed; our President surely remembers. biden
1 Like
That was a cut and paste quote from Benny at nearly the beginning of this topic, about not seeing criminals…
My opinion is that anyone who leaves S. America or Mexico and walks hundreds of miles in search of a better life, deserves entry.
1 Like
Joe Biden didn’t enforce the immigration laws, allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter our country, many of the gang members. No president before Donald Trump was forced to hold trials to deport illegal immigrants.
Joe Biden didn’t enforce the immigration laws, allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter our country, many of them gang members. No president before Donald Trump was forced to hold trials to deport illegal immigrants.
Joe Biden didn’t enforce the immigration laws, allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter our country, many of them gang members. No president before Donald Trump was forced to hold trials to deport illegal immigrants. I don’t expect it’s possible to hold millions of trials.
I hear the heart behind that, Tim—but good intentions don’t erase the need for good laws.
Deserving a better life doesn’t automatically mean deserving entry. If that were the standard, we’d have open borders and no nation left to enter. Compassion without order is chaos, and Scripture doesn’t teach that we ignore justice for the sake of sentiment.
Yes—treat the sojourner with dignity. But entry isn’t a right—it’s a privilege governed by law. And if we toss the law aside for noble feelings, we’re not helping—we’re unraveling the very structure that protects both citizens and immigrants alike.
Alright, BobEstey—let’s clear the smoke from the fire here.
Yes, Biden’s border policy has been a hot mess of chaos, cowardice, and cartel-enabling negligence. No argument there. But Trump wasn’t “forced” to hold trials—the Constitution requires due process, not because of Biden, but because we’re a nation of laws, not strongmen with Sharpies.
Every president is bound by due process. Trump didn’t face some new burden—he just tried to skip the line by reviving a wartime law from 1798 to deport people without hearings. That’s not restoring law and order. That’s tossing the law in the shredder because it’s inconvenient.
So yes, Biden flung the gates open—but Trump tried to lock people out by bypassing the legal keys altogether.
Two wrongs. No righteousness.
Let’s stop pretending one constitutional violation cancels out the other.
Total nonsense! Why not inform yourself of the facts instead of propaganda?
Beyond frightening! He has no regard for the established laws of this country and the rights of citizens. Both are the hallmarks of dictatorship.
Where in the Constitution does it require the president to hold a trial for the 20 million illegal immigrants Biden let into the country?
Everyone knows Biden opened the border.
What other president was prohibited from deporting illegal immigrants?
Part 1…
Nonsense. President Biden controlled the border(s), as have all Presidents. To say otherwise is simply repeating Trump’s propaganda.
The immigration policy Joe Biden initially focused on reversing many of the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration, => before implementing stricter enforcement mechanisms later in his term. <= During his first day in office, Biden unveiled the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 and reversed many of Trump’s policies on immigration, such as halting the construction of the Mexico–United States border wall, travel ban, and signed an executive order to reaffirm protections for DACA recipients. [Wikipedia]
Part 2…
Trump has deported innocent people without going through the required judicial process. A judge ordered the plane carrying the deportees to turn around and the order was ignored.
Part 3…
It says “love your neighbor” in BOTH the Old Testament and the New Testament. That is clearly God’s command about how we are to relate to others.
Alright, BobEstey and Benny—y’all brought the heat, but now it’s time for the refiner’s fire. Let’s walk this out with truth, clarity, and a Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other.
⸻
To BobEstey:
Yes, Biden’s border handling has been a mess of negligence and political posturing. We all see the flood. We all know the gates were flung open under the banner of “compassion” while the cartels danced through the chaos.
But here’s where your question needs sharpening:
No president has ever been “prohibited” from deporting illegal immigrants. Trump wasn’t prohibited either—he just got checked for trying to deport people outside the law. There’s a big difference between being blocked from enforcing the law and being slapped down for trying to dodge it.
You want strong immigration enforcement? So do I.
But we don’t secure the nation by sacrificing the rule of law.
⸻
To Benny:
Part 1: Yes, Biden reversed Trump’s immigration policies—and that was a disaster. He stopped wall construction, pushed mass parole, and weakened enforcement. That did open the floodgates, whether Wikipedia wants to spin it or not. Later tightening the screws doesn’t undo the damage of lighting the house on fire first.
Part 2: If Trump deported people without proper judicial review and ignored a court order? That’s a serious violation. But let’s be precise here—those kinds of accusations need receipts, not recycled headlines. Due process applies, and no one—left, right, or orange—gets to skip it.
Part 3: “Love your neighbor” is absolutely biblical—but let’s remember: loving your neighbor doesn’t mean erasing your front door. Scripture commands compassion, not chaos. God told Israel to care for the sojourner within their gates—but He also gave them gates, laws, and order. Read Nehemiah. Borders weren’t just allowed—they were blessed.
So yes, love your neighbor.
But loving them lawlessly is not love—it’s license.
And God is a God of mercy and justice—not one at the expense of the other.
⸻
Final word?
Biden’s policy was weak. Trump’s tactic was reckless.
Neither side gets to play God with the law.
And the Church better stop choosing kings when it’s supposed to be calling them to account.
“Love your neighbor” means one thing and one thing only: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR
Nobody should re-interpret God’s word! It says what is says – clearly in both Testaments.
I believe God 110%, as should everyone. Only latter-day Pharisees put a different spin on it.