By JD Breen
Premium Insights
April 1, 2025
Sometimes, when a pendulum swings too far, there's an urge to replace the weight with a wrecking ball.
In some ways, that's good. Eyesores should be demolished after over-eager architects get out of hand.
Insane and Suicidal
The Biden border policy was insane to the point of being suicidal. That administration didn't merely allow illegal aliens, it welcomed them... like a Maître d' showing diners to their table.
From the far reaches of the world, "migrants" were funneled thru the Darien Gap, guided across Central America, escorted up Mexico, and brought into the United States, straining the seams of the social fabric.
Americans who complained about the influx were smeared as (what else?) uncompassionate bigots. But they had every right to resent an orchestrated invasion of their country, and to insist on a say regarding who came in.
They still do.
As with trespassers anywhere, anyone in the United States illegally should be evicted. Some suffering is inevitable when reversing the stream. But blame for that lies with people who encouraged intruders to break the law, not with ones trying to enforce its provisions.
Yet that enforcement must be constitutional. Regardless Americans (understandable) frustrations, the US government can't just "round people up" without probable cause.
Alarming tattoos, sketchy social media posts, unfamiliar languages, and incriminating affiliations may be valuable leads. But they must be followed down a legal path.
The Trump Administration's assertions aren't adequate to kick people out, or to unilaterally ship hundreds of them to another country's prison.
Bill of Rights
Defenders of extra-judicial seizure and deportations argue that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens, not to non-citizens.
This is nonsense.
It doesn't apply to either. It applies only to the government.
The Bill of Rights was written not to grant rights, but to acknowledge them... and to prevent the government from violating these prerogatives that every person possesses.
Here's how:
The First Amendment stipulates that Congress can do nothing related to religion, speech, petitions, the press, or right of assembly (no exceptions are made for non-citizens).
The Second doesn't limit whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It simply acknowledges that this right exists, and can't be breached.
The Third prohibits soldiers from being quartered in "any" house.
The Fourth affirms the rights of "the people" (not "the citizens") to be secure in their persons and possessions, and that warrants can't be issued without probable cause.
The Fifth asserts that "no person" shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
The Sixth states that "the accused" (whether citizen or not) shall "enjoy a speedy and public trial".
The Seventh reinforces the "right of trial by jury", without limiting it to US citizens.
The Eighth prohibits excessive bail, imposing excessive fines, or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment (on anyone, not just citizens).
The Ninth and Tenth are perhaps most important. The Ninth ensures that explicitly prohibiting the government from doing what the other amendments forbid doesn't implicitly allow it to do anything else.
And the Tenth reminds us that the US government can't do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow, while the states are permitted whatever it doesn't proscribe.
These amendments were added to ensure the original Constitution wouldn't be misconstrued to confer more power to the U.S. government than was intended by the men who wrote it or states that ratified it. Not one of them mentions US citizens.
This isn't to say that non-citizens have all the privileges and protections citizens do. Of course they don't. Otherwise citizenship would be meaningless. But they do retain their human rights.
Scary Name
None of these include the freedom to enter property that isn't theirs. Anyone proven to have done so should be kicked out. But they're entitled to due process before they are. The government doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. The accused does.
Border "Czar" Tom Homan seems to disagree.
When asked whether presumed criminals deserve due process, he invoked a murdered girl to make his point:
"Due process? What was Laken Riley's due process?"
Tom Homan CITES Laken Riley To JUSTIFY Lack Of DUE Process For Tren De Aragua’—Robby Soave
This is a deflective cheap shot to stoke emotion and stifle debate. And I say this as someone whose son attends the university where Laken Riley was killed.
Murder victims don't get due process before they're killed. How could they? But their alleged killers should afterward. And Riley's did. He was convicted and sentenced (the nature of which is another debate. I'd be fine if he were consigned to a Salvadoran dungeon).
Homan went on to assert that "that plane [carrying inmates to El Salvador] was full of people designated as terrorists."
Here we go again.
Have we learned nothing (the author asks rhetorically)? Are we back to the Bush years, with the "terrorist" boogeyman giving overbearing authorities any power they claim?
The State loves nebulous labels like "terrorist", which cause otherwise rational people to yield real liberty for the illusion of "safety". But human beings aren't stripped of their rights because government goons slap a scary name on them.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 didn't change that. This law (itself of dubious constitutionality) has been revived by the current administration to legitimize its actions.
The original statute allowed the president to detain, restrain, and deport resident aliens deemed "dangerous" during wartime. This was the act FDR used to confine Americans of Japanese ancestry to concentration camps.
That was obviously a criminal outrage, and one of countless reasons Roosevelt should've been impeached. But even that affront was committed during wartime.
Congress has declared no war that would authorize the Trump Administration to use this act (or any other) as rationale to arbitrarily apprehend and expel people without due process.
Illegal immigration and the border-jumpers already here are serious problems that must be addressed. But giving excessive power to the US government is a weird remedy.
After all, that's the entity that made this mess!
Weapons of War
The border should be sealed, and millions of "migrants" who've come illegally should be returned. But that must be done in accordance with the Constitution. Otherwise, what kind of country are we trying to preserve?
This isn't some misplaced sympathy for alien gangsters. It's genuine concern for US citizens. Illegal immigrants are a threat. But the government is a bigger one.
After decades enduring fabricated fights against drugs and "terror", have Americans forgotten how eagerly the weapons of these "wars" are turned against them?
Apparently so.
They now take for granted that their movement is monitored, communication surveilled, bodies groped, bags searched, and financials tracked as if they were presumed to be criminals.
Because they are.
But most don't care. As with the "War on Terror" or the covid response, Americans are often great at recognizing outrages in retrospect. Yet most are willing accomplices when it matters most.
Whenever fear is fomented (nowadays, when isn't it?), they cede the greatest menace to their liberty whatever power it presumes, so long as it promises to keep them "safe". They seldom consider that what it really wants is to keep them secure.
JD