President-elect Trump hasn’t even taken office again and the chattering classes are already having a meltdown about what they see as the negative effects “mass deportations” will produce. 

A significant amount of the pearl-clutching is based on claims that it’s somehow cruel to deport uninvited guests who happened to have avoided the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) long enough to put down roots in the United States. This is an utterly illogical argument and one that would never be tolerated in connection with any other crime or civil violation.

This specious argument persists because people who advocate for illegal aliens deliberately misrepresent U.S. immigration law. They insist that illegal aliens have a plethora of rights that must be protected. They portray a hearing before an immigration judge as a “trial.” And they lead the public to believe that a deportation order is a “punishment” akin to a criminal sentence. But none of this is actually true.

As far as rights go, way back in 1892, the Supreme Court held that, with regard to aliens in removal proceedings, “the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress are due process of law.” In plain English, that means that immigration violators are entitled to a hearing before the Immigration Court and to the appellate process set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

A hearing before the Immigration Court isn’t a trial. It’s an administrative proceeding where the alien facing deportation is given an opportunity to show cause why he or she should not be removed from the U.S. In fact, the document summoning immigration violators to their hearing in front of an immigration judge used to be called an “Order to Show Cause” for just that reason.

There are essentially four questions that have to be answered in an immigration proceeding: 1) Is the person in the dock an alien? 2) If so, does the alien have permission to be in the United States? 3) Did the alien violate the requirements of the INA? 4) Is there any relief from deportation available to the alien?

The arguments before the immigration judge take place in a courtroom. And to a non-lawyer, they probably look a lot like the criminal proceedings one sees on Law & Order. Legally speaking, however, they’re closer to a driver’s license revocation proceeding than they are to a murder trial. The ultimate question isn’t one of guilt or innocence, it’s whether the alien was given license to enter and remain in the U.S.

Moreover, immigration proceedings are civil in nature, not criminal. Deportation isn’t a punishment. It’s a process for removing people who don’t have any right to be in the United States and sending them back to their country of citizenship. Think of it as evicting a trespasser.

Most people who come home and find two strangers in their basement call the police and have them taken away. They don’t offer to feed the interlopers, pay for their college education, and provide medical coverage for life.

But the people who make their living advocating for “immigrant rights” don’t want you to know any of this. They would much rather portray foreign law breakers as innocent victims of an unjust system. But that simply isn’t the case. And, quite frankly, you’d be hard-pressed to find a fairer, more humane immigration system anywhere in the world.

The reason our immigration system looks like it’s not functioning very well isn’t that it’s outdated, broken, unfair or otherwise inadequate. It’s suffering from a profound lack of enforcement. Too many administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have selectively ignored any parts of the INA they didn’t like.

That sends a bad message to would-be border jumpers – break the law and you will be rewarded for it. But, as judges and parents know all too well, when you reward bad behavior you only encourage more of it. And sadly, our immigration system regularly rewards law-breakers.

Aliens who avoid DHS for long enough and claim their removal would cause undue hardship to their families can apply for Cancellation of Removal. If an immigration judge approves the application they are magically transformed from illegals to lawful permanent residents. Temporary Protected Status persists for decades after the emergencies for which it was invoked. And elected leaders regularly create unlawful programs like DACA and the CHNV parole program. Is it any wonder foreigners are streaming over the border?

That approach doesn’t fly in other types of legal proceedings. If you steal your neighbor’s Mercedes, there isn’t a court in the land that’s going to let it slide just because you really love the car and have grown attached to the bucket seats upholstered in fine, Corinthian leather.

So, don’t listen to those who are more concerned about foreign law-breakers than the safety and security of their citizen neighbors. And don’t buy into the absurd argument that we, as a nation, are obligated to consult with illegal aliens and make sure we aren’t inconveniencing them when we enforce the INA.

After all, if this country is so unkind and disrespectful of migrant rights, why does half the world want to relocate here?

Matt O’Brien is the Director of Investigations at the Immigration Reform Law Institute and the co-host of IRLI’s podcast “No Border, No Country.” Immediately prior to working for IRLI he served as an immigration judge. He has nearly 30 years of experience in immigration law and policy, having held numerous positions within the Department of Homeland Security.

Image: Twitter video screen shot