I’m sitting here with my coffee, reading about the latest development in the migrant removal policy, and I just can’t help but think that this is getting more complicated by the day. The Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow them to remove migrants to countries other than their homeland without giving them the opportunity to raise human rights concerns. Folks, this is a tough one – on one hand, I get the concern about human rights, but on the other hand, I also understand the administration’s desire to streamline the process and avoid logistical nightmares.
The Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal after a decision from the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the removals, which have been taking place since the Supreme Court sided with the administration on the issue more than a year ago. I’m no lawyer, but it seems like the administration is trying to find a way to get around the Convention Against Torture, which bars deportation or extradition to countries where there’s a possibility of torture. Bless their hearts, it’s a tricky situation.
US Solicitor General D. John Sauer is quoted as saying that the decision has “created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations – including the cancellation of flights – and led to added expense, potential diplomatic issues, and the inability to remove dangerous criminals.” You can’t blame the guy for wanting to get things moving, but at the same time, it’s not like we can just ignore human rights concerns. Somewhere in Atlanta, a producer thought this sounded terrifying, and now we’ve got a big mess on our hands.
The Supreme Court has already reviewed the policy at an earlier stage of the case last year and allowed it to continue over the dissent of the court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. I’m not surprised, given the current state of politics, but it’s still interesting to see how this is all playing out. The justices then sided with the administration again in a case involving a specific group of migrants that had been held for several weeks on a military base in Djibouti. It’s a real international drama, folks.
The administration began this policy last year as part of its broader crackdown on immigration. One of the biggest hurdles previous administrations have faced is trying to deport migrants back to their home countries who would refuse to receive them for a host of reasons, including frosty relations with the United States. Trump’s answer to that problem was to deport those migrants to some other country, even if the migrant had no ties to the destination. It’s a creative solution, I’ll give him that.
The policy drew considerable scrutiny last year after immigrant rights groups revealed that one group of migrants, initially bound for South Sudan, were being detained in Djibouti. The migrants, including some from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, were held in a converted Conex shipping container. An estimated 25,000 migrants have been removed under the policy. That’s a lot of people, and you have to wonder what’s going to happen to them next.
At issue is the Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Senate in 1994, that generally bars deportation or extradition to countries where there is a possibility that the migrant might be tortured. The law is vague about how an administration is supposed to make that determination and what process rights are due to the migrant at issue. It’s a real gray area, and I’m not sure how the Supreme Court is going to rule on this one.
In its emergency appeal on Thursday, the administration asked for an immediate “administrative” stay that would allow the flights to continue. The Justice Department told the court in its filing that it had cancelled flights and “has had to pull nearly 150 aliens from removal flights to at least four different countries.” That’s a lot of cancelled flights, and you have to wonder what’s going to happen to those migrants next.
The high court ordered the immigrant rights groups fighting the administration to respond by Monday afternoon. I’m sure it’ll be a real battle, and I’ll be sitting here with my coffee, watching it all unfold. In conclusion, this migrant removal policy is a complex issue with no easy answers, and it’ll be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on it. One thing’s for sure, though – it’s going to be a wild ride, and I’m just glad I’ve got my coffee to keep me company as I watch it all go down.
Armchair patriot. Believes in the free market, cold beer, and that there’s always a guy named George behind every CNN segment.
Former remote-throwing champion turned #1 couch commentator on liberal panic in the media. Born in Texas (or so his mug says), he earned a degree in Fake Newsology & Beer Philosophy from YouTube University.
⚖️ ENTER THE LEGALIZER
Think the government has no idea what it's doing? Put your case before the Federal Case Terminal and find out.
