Deportation Dispute

A legal dispute over deportations of alleged gang members continues to brew, as the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to temporarily pause the deportations while a challenge to the President’s authority to remove the detainees without full due process continues. The President claims authority under the Alien Enemies Act to deport some individuals without a review process and says it is “not possible . . . to give everyone a trial,” while the litigants claim the speedy deportations deny individuals the opportunity to contest their removal. The Court’s temporary order was agreed to by a vote of 7-2, with Justices Alito and Thomas dissenting.

Analysis and eternal perspective: It might be the most divisive story in the nation at the moment. One side correctly and boldly asserts that national security requires violent criminals be prohibited from entering or staying in the United States. The other side correctly and boldly states that if unsympathetic defendants do not have due process rights, then nobody does.

It is a common refrain here at The Equipped, but consider a sincere question: Have you given due consideration to each of the arguments above?

Proverbs 18:17 says, “In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.” Here is the “problem” with that biblical command: It challenges and threatens our personal opinions and our desired outcomes.

If you desire the speedy removal of those with a higher likelihood of gang affiliation, that understandable preference is threatened by the suggestion of full due process rights. If you desire the stringent defense of due process rights, that understandable preference is threatened by the suggestion there are more violent detainees than time to hear their challenges.

Much of the coverage of this story—and certainly most of the social media interaction around it—amplifies one of these two arguments and minimizes the other. As we in The Equipped family work to model a better way, let’s be intensely honest with ourselves. Have we fully considered arguments from both sides to determine which are valid?

Further, let’s pray specifically for those charged with responsibilities in this dispute. The President has a duty to defend national security and comply with the law, and the Supreme Court has a duty to balance a president’s foreign affairs authority with an individual’s right to defend against charges. These are not small responsibilities, and we should pray for those shouldering them.

The following article originally appeared in Thann’s “The Equipped” Weekly Newsletter. For more information on Thann’s weekly email, click here.