Transcript
Mark Levin (0:00)
He's here.
Caller/Guest (0:01)
He's here now. Broadcasting from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Le Ven. Sam.
Mark Levin (1:03)
Sara, Mark levin here. Number 8773-8138-1187-7381-3811. How you be? We're going to go over a lot this evening, but I thought I'd start somewhere about immigration. Oh, Mark, immigration. Stay with me. The Democrats are a conga line of buffoons telling us that they want to get rid of ice, that they're going to shut down the government if ICE isn't controlled. In other words, if their future constituency and their future citizen children are deported, they're going to shut down the government. This has been their big plan. We've talked about it for years, and here it is. But I wanted to give you some facts and some law about the nature of deporting people, due process and so forth. You hear people throw these terms around and they're lying to you. Our friend, Hans von Spakowski, expert in this area, he's written about it. I've written about it myself, but I like the way he summarizes it. Immigration cases are civil rather than criminal proceedings, and aliens have limited due process rights as defined by Congress and Supreme Court precedents. Now, those rights differ depending on whether aliens are trying to enter this country or already here legally or illegally, as well as their visa or other status. It's all there in federal law. Now, federal immigration statutes bar aliens from asserting certain claims in federal courts. Excuse me. Prohibit any federal court from reviewing specified federal government actions, such as the attorney General's enforcement of deportation orders. Let me stop at that, comma. Congress has strictly limited the role of federal courts in deportation matters. Got it. And the reason is they didn't want to bog down the federal court system and 770 federal trial judges with immigration cases where nothing else could be heard in the federal judiciary. So the ability to go to federal court is extremely limited. And often when these radical left wing lawyers dressed up as judges, some of them should be wearing white robes and hoods, but they wear black robes. That's right. Them. They give standing and they hear cases that they're really not even supposed to hear in many cases. And limit which federal courts have jurisdiction over particular alien claims. Federal courts assuming jurisdiction over such banned, prohibited or limited claims are violating federal law. Got that? Now, some critics of the Trump administration's enforcement of Federal immigration law, including members of the public, the media, and Congress, have made misleading claims about the due process rights that apply in immigration proceedings. Those who claim that non citizens referred to in our nation's immigration laws as aliens are entitled to the full panoply of constitutional rights enjoyed by American citizens are flatly wrong and fail to differentiate between criminal prosecutions and immigration proceedings, the latter of which are civil proceedings as provided by Congress and by some court decisions interpreting the Constitution. Aliens have only limited due process rights in immigration proceedings, quite limited. Those rights differ depending on the alien status and whether he or she is outside the United States and trying to enter this country already in the country legally or illegally. In fact, several federal immigration statutes specifically bar aliens from even asserting certain claims in federal courts. Federal courts assuming jurisdiction over such claims by aliens are violating federal law, and any orders they issue ought to be declared void or invalid by an appellate court. Now, regardless of their legal status, aliens, AKA foreigners, are entitled to the same constitutional due process rights provided to criminal defense criminal who are citizens when they are being criminally prosecuted for assault, rape, burglary, kidnapping, murder or other crimes. However, immigration proceedings to bar an alien's entry or to remove or deport, that is, deport and remove are synonymous in federal immigration law, and alien present inside the United States are not criminal proceedings, as the Supreme Court first outlined in 1893 in Feng Yuting vs US a decision in which it rejected habeas corpus petitions filed by Chinese citizens who claimed they were being unlawfully detained by U.S. marshals, quote, without due process of law, unquote. The immigration proceeding is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment by appropriate and lawful means of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this particular class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend on what on what it shall depend. I should say that's the court's decision in 1893. Now, the court added, an alien being removed by the government is not being deprived of life, liberty or property. I'm quoting from the decision. And that the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel unusual punishments, therefore have no application of Any kind. Now, that is also why federal immigration officers do not need a warrant issued by a judge before arresting and detaining aliens and why aliens are not entitled to be advised of their Miranda rights or to the assistance of a government appointed lawyer during their deportation proceedings. That's a 1966 Supreme Court decision. Miranda versus Arizona. You may have heard of it. The Supreme Court held that under the Fifth Amendment due process, criminal defendants must be warned that they have a right to be silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they are entitled to an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney, one has to be appointed by the government to represent them before they can be questioned. The fact that the removal process is a civil proceeding was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010 in Padilla versus Kentucky. Miranda has nothing to do with it. Civil proceeding. The court held in that case that a criminal defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he misinformed his client, a permanent resident alien charged with transporting drugs, of the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Now, while that guilty plea in his criminal prosecution made his deportation virtually mandatory under federal immigration law, the court noted it had long recognized that deportation is particularly severe penalty, but it is not in a strict sense a criminal sanction. The Court emphasized that removal proceedings are civil in nature. INS vs Lopez Mendoza, 1984. Stick with me. Then you're going to see how outrageous the media have been. Outrageous these Democrats are and these Democrat judges. Aliens are not even entitled to the protection of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, provides that no ex post facto law shall be passed by Congress that is after the fact law. Expo facto laws imposed criminal punishments on conduct that was lawful when it was done. In 1954, in a case involving the deportation of an alien who'd been a member of the Communist Party before such membership had been a deportable offense. The Supreme Court held that, and I quote, it has been the unbroken rule of this court that the expo facto clause has no application to deportation. Why raise your hand? Because it's a civil proceeding against an alien. Galvin vs Press, 1954. The alien was a member of the Communist Party from 1944-46, and membership in the Communist Party was not made a deportable offense until Congress passed the Internal security Act in 1950. Aliens also cannot claim selective prosecution when they are contesting removal. 1999, Reno v. American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee. The court ruled that an alien unlawfully in this country has no Constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation. So the due process rights in civil immigration proceedings are very limited, as outlined and defined by Congress in federal immigration laws and the procedural rules promulgated by an Attorney General for the conduct of federal immigration proceedings. In addition, federal immigration courts are not Article 3 courts in which judges must be confirmed by the Senate. They're bureaucrats. They are administrative courts within the Department of Justice. We call them immigration judges. They're not federal judges at all. In fact, I would argue they're not judges at all. They are employees of the Department of Justice who are selected by the Attorney General and who act as the Attorney General's delegates in the cases that come before them. So when you hear about an immigration judge, these are bureaucrats appointed by an Attorney General who work in and for the Department of Justice. Now, aliens attempting to. Let me take a break and continue. Is this useful? Mr. Producer, I just want you to know what we're dealing with with these Democrats and these, these phony protesters. We'll be right back.