Re: Newscum barfs lies again

On 11/14/2024 4:35 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Nothing can be done until a court is paid to issue a deportation order.

Untrue:


https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-2/ALDE_00013725/

Amdt5.6.2.2 Exclusion of Aliens Seeking Entry into the United States

According to the Supreme Court, aliens seeking initial entry into the 
United States have no constitutional rights regarding their applications 
for admission.1 The Court has reasoned that the government has the 
inherent, sovereign authority to admit or exclude aliens, and that 
aliens standing outside of the geographic boundaries of the United 
States have no vested right to be admitted into the country.2

Thus, in its 1953 decision in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. 
Mezei, the Court held that the government could deny entry to an alien 
without a hearing, notwithstanding the alien’s temporary harborage on 
Ellis Island pending the government’s attempts to remove him from the 
United States.3 More recently, in Department of Homeland Security v. 
Thuraissigiam, the Court in 2020 rejected an alien’s constitutional 
challenge to a federal statute that limits judicial review of an 
expedited order of removal, reasoning that the alien—who was apprehended 
shortly after entering the United States unlawfully—could be considered 
to be an applicant for admission at the border.4 In short, for aliens 
seeking admission into the United States, the decision to permit or deny 
entry by an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers 
expressly conferred by Congress, is due process of law.5

In certain cases, the exclusion of an alien has been seen to implicate 
the rights of U.S. citizens. In its 1972 decision in Kleindienst v. 
Mandel, for example the Supreme Court appeared to recognize that U.S. 
citizens’ First Amendment rights were affected by the denial of a 
nonimmigrant visa to a Marxist journalist who had been invited to speak 
in the United States by a group of university professors.6 In Mandel, 
however, the Court also recognized that because the plenary 
congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens 
has long been firmly established, the Court would uphold, in the face of 
a constitutional challenge, an alien’s exclusion as long as there is a 
facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the decision.7 Thus, even 
when reviewing constitutional challenges brought by U.S. citizens, the 
Court has limited the scope of judicial review and adopted a highly 
deferential standard for reviewing the decision to exclude an alien.8

U.S. citizens have also asserted that the exclusion of an alien has 
impinged upon their due process rights.9 In Kerry v. Din, five Justices 
in 2015 agreed that denying an immigrant visa to the husband of a U.S. 
citizen on the grounds that he was inadmissible under a provision of 
federal immigration law (pertaining to terrorist activities) did not 
violate the due process rights of the U.S. citizen spouse.10 These 
Justices differed in their reasoning, though. A three-Justice plurality 
held that the U.S. citizen spouse had no protected liberty interest 
under the Due Process Clause in her husband’s ability to come to the 
United States, and did not decide whether the government had established 
a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for excluding her husband.11 
A two-Justice concurrence did not reach the question of whether the U.S. 
citizen wife had asserted a protected liberty interest, but instead 
concluded that the consular officials’ citation of a particular 
statutory ground for inadmissibility as the basis for denying the visa 
application satisfied due process under Mandel, which requires only that 
the government state a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the 
denial.12

In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court in 2018 reaffirmed that there is 
limited judicial review of executive decisions to exclude aliens seeking 
admission from abroad.13 The Court rejected an Establishment Clause 
challenge brought by U.S. citizens and other challengers to a 
presidential proclamation that provided for the exclusion of specified 
categories of nonresident aliens from mostly Muslim-majority 
countries.14 The Court recognized that decisions concerning the 
admission or exclusion of aliens generally lie beyond the scope of 
judicial review, and are subject only to a highly constrained judicial 
inquiry when an exclusion allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of 
a U.S. citizen.15 The Court upheld the proclamation, ruling that it was 
rationally related to the stated government objective of protecting 
national security by excluding aliens from countries with deficient 
information-sharing practices.16

In its 2024 decision in Dep’t of State v. Muñoz, the Supreme Court ruled 
that a U.S. citizen lacks a constitutionally protected liberty interest 
in her noncitizen spouse’s admission into the United States.17 Justice 
Barrett, writing for five members of the majority, explained that the 
Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides heightened protection 
against government interference with certain fundamental rights and 
liberty interests.18 Nonetheless, the Court determined that a U.S. 
citizen’s asserted right to have her noncitizen spouse admitted into the 
United States so that he could reside with her did not qualify as a 
fundamental liberty interest.19 In reversing the lower court’s judgment 
to the contrary, the Court concluded that such a right was not deeply 
rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition because the federal 
government had long exercised the sovereign power to set the terms 
governing the admission and exclusion of noncitizens without granting 
spouses a right to immigrate.20 Consequently, because the U.S. citizen 
lacked a fundamental liberty interest that would allow her to invoke an 
exception to the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, the State 
Department’s denial of her husband’s visa application was not subject to 
judicial review.21

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1911-8-usc-1325-unlawful-entry-failure-depart-fleeing-immigration

1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing 
Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry 
into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the 
purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial 
enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 
U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or 
attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as 
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.