DUE PROCESS

First there was the outrage over separating parents and children occasioned by Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" policy on immigration. That matter got "settled" by executive order, though details on the ground are mushy.

Now we come to the (lesser) outrage over "due process."

Advisers apparently came to Trump and asked for 5000 more judges to deal with the illegal immigration problem, and he rejected the notion. (To be clear, Trump himself is the source of this number, and his way with the truth is decidedly shoddy.)

So, what's with all the judges? Some folks say everybody in the country (legal or otherwise) is entitled to the due process of law—which entails standing in front of a judge—before action can be taken against them.

It's in the Constitution, they say.

Actually, the matter is cloudy. The Fifth Amendment uses the word "person." The Fourteenth first talks of "citizens"—born or naturalized—then later uses the word "person."

Trump would like to limit due process to citizens (born or naturalized). That way he could deal with border jumpers directly, without the courts, and deport them (and their children). This eliminates the expense of hiring all those judges, as well as avoiding the massive amount of "corruption" that comes along with judges in general. (According to the President; fallout from decisions that went against him?)

Those seeking asylum—and not just a job or better life—could be considered in situ, as long as that situ is outside the US. In the case of those seeking jobs, maybe it matters what their skills are. Trump is a fan of merit-based immigration.

Annoying as it sounds, I tend to lean in Trump's direction on this matter. The alternative: Folks who step out of the Rio Grande are immediately entitled to a nice fluffy towel and a judge's considered opinion as to whether they can remain in the country.

Does that mean everybody in the world is a potential American? Are we saying people in other countries just naturally have that right already? If so, do they have to cross our borders (at the appropriate "portal") to claim that right? Or is everybody already an American, even though they're currently living "abroad"?

Trump would say no, and I tend to agree.

If border crossers come with rights, that would appear to diminish the ability of this (or any) country to make decisions about who may enter. Donald Trump is likely correct when he says a country without borders is not a real country at all.

(I like to say: There are no rights—only agreements. Anything else relies on supernatural processes and divine intervention, which I categorize as nonsensical. Note: There is nothing in this position that prevents a country from entering into an agreement concerning immigration.)

Our President is nothing if not a showman. When the uproar over separating children from their parents became intolerably loud, he hauled out Americans who'd had their loved ones "permanently separated" from them by illegal aliens with mayhem in their eyes.

(A clear case of illegals taking jobs away from American murderers.)

According to Trump, the crime rate in this country would drift toward zero if he could just keep out the foreign riffraff. (He suggests herding bad guys into America is the wet dream of the Democratic party.)

Trump's favorite solution is of course the Wall, which would apparently go up mountains and down valleys and straddle the middle of the Rio Grande. A bit of an overkill, but that's just Trump the Showman. Nothing less will do, according to him.

Anyone who opposes this—or any of his heart-felt policies—is simply out to destroy America. It's that simple.

Simple thoughts from a simple man. But a man with a lot of unquestioning support.

And now a man with another Supreme Court position to fill, affecting life in this country for generations to come.

Oh, boy...