It is genuinely an extremely difficult challenge to manage illegal crossings if every individual must be processed through the full U.S. legal system which has massive resourcing and backlog problems (3m+ cases).
Voters across the political spectrum have made it unmistakably clear — in poll after poll — that they are deeply dissatisfied with the current rate of illegal and asylum-seeking entries.
Is there a morally permissible way to enact their will?
Immigration courts are already separate from the rest of the legal system so the implication here is wrong.
Going too slow for you? Hire more immigration judges, which are executive employees not full article 3 judges.
Voters across the political spectrum have made it clear in poll after poll the last few weeks that they do not approve of the way this administration is grabbing whoever they can and shipping them out of the country without any check or verification that they are deporting the right people.
If the administration can declare you an illegal immigrant with no due process they can ship anyone they want out of the country. They could grab you off the street, ship you to and El Salvador torture prison intentionally or by mistake (as they have already admitted to) and there’s nothing you can do about it.
If the law exceeds the government's ability to enforce it, relax it. It's de facto relaxed because of the lack of fundamental resources to enforce it... Put the reality on paper.
Stop treating the southern border as a war zone and reopen it. It used to be more open. It was, in fact, more open in that magical America great period that MAGA ostensibly seems to be nostalgic for. Not only did the country survive the openness, it flourished.
If the law is too hard to enforce, have less of it. Lower scrutiny. Hand out day passes. Welcome The stranger with a smile and a friendly wave.
In fact, that process is why deportation courts exist: The theory goes that you're not really punishing anyone, you're just sending them straight back out the door they just came through, therefore, a lower intensity of process is acceptable.
However that rationale becomes evil nonsense the moment a government starts "deporting" arrivals into a damned concentration camp, or back into the hands of people that want to kill them, seizing their property, separating them from their children, etc. since all of that is obviously punitive.
Admit that the current and past efforts to keep people out and quickly deport people failed. And then set up reliable systems of verifying people's citizenship before they can get a job and quickly deport those who should be deported.
Make it easier to work here legally in the US like it used to be in the 90s, and threaten CEOs with jail time if their companies have a pattern of hiring ineligible workers.
And let's be clear, a lot of this border security "crisis" is rooted in racism and Fox news alarmism. The GOP likes having the problem because it keeps the base angry.
Congress could increase funding for the courts enough so that they could do their job. But that would go against the Republican quest for smaller government and lower taxes.
This quest is a fig leaf. The expansion of the government has proceeded equally under both presidents. The republicans just choose to spend the budget on other things and are less willing to raise taxes to fund things. The current tariffs are an interesting PR workaround.
A world where the government gets to say "well it is annoying and expensive to follow the law give people rights so we just won't" is a horror show.
If the people really want a world where people are denied legal process then they can build the popular support for a constitutional amendment. Until then, the government is going to have to pay for this shit.
And we did have a legislative effort to reduce the number of illegal border crossings. Trump scuttled it.
Voters across the political spectrum have made it unmistakably clear — in poll after poll — that they are deeply dissatisfied with the current rate of illegal and asylum-seeking entries.
Is there a morally permissible way to enact their will?