The New York Times is reporting that, two decades having passed since Nascimento Blair was last in his home country Jamaica, he has finally been deported. A judge ordered Blair to be deported after he was convicted of kidnapping in 2006. He was allowed to remain in the United States after leaving prison in 2020 because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not consider Blair a priority for deportation. Now they do. So away he went.
With the reality setting in that their poster boy, “Maryland Dad” Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is a human trafficker, The New York Times has offered Blair as the next poster boy. The Gray Lady wants its readers to know his biography (as its reporters have constructed it)—among other things, how he reformed his life, as if that has anything to do about whether he should live his reformed life in the United States or in his home country. If he is such a saint, Jamaica could use him.
“I feel if Trump met him, he would think this guy makes America great,” said Dawn Ravella, a social worker, quoted in the Times. “He was born in Jamaica, but made in America. A person who did something bad, had remorse, paid their [sic] dues and paid it forward by living a life of kindness and service.” He is reformed, The Times reports, channeling his supporters for whom his “life story was one of rehabilitation, nuanced and filled with qualities that they believe Mr. Trump’s deportation machine disregards as it flies out immigrants en masse.”
Where was the furor over Mr. Clinton’s “deportation machine,” which removed 12.3 million illegal aliens from America? Or Misters Bush and Obama’s machines that removed 10.3 million and 5.3 million respectively?
The headline of the Times article “21 Years Later, Deported Back to a ‘Home’ He Barely Knew” announces a fallacy. Why is it so awful to send a man back to his home country that he hardly knows, but desirable for a man to illegally cross into a country he hardly knows? Imagine this argument: “Yes, he lived here as a child, but he hasn’t been here for 21 years, so we shouldn’t let him in.” That’s not an argument. The issue at hand is whether there is a legitimate reason for the man to enter.
The relevant question concerning Blair is whether there is legitimate reason for him to stay. He is an illegal alien with a felony conviction for kidnapping and scheduled for deportation. Blair’s rehabilitation is entirely beside the point. This is no reason for him to stay in a country in which he holds no citizenship. He doesn’t even enjoy a path to citizenship. He was never told when he was released from prison that he could stay in the country because had been rehabilitated. He was in America only because ICE did not act on a judge’s deportation order. Now they have. And he is home—like Garcia.
Readers will recall that the media used a similar frame to manufacture sympathy over family separation for purposes of delegitimizing Trump’s deportation efforts during his first term. The ploy becomes obvious merely by asking why, if it’s so terrible to separate families at the border, separating America families has never been a concern. Family separation in the context of crime commission is standard. The rational question is why they’re being separated, not that they’re being separated.
What the New York Times is doing is the purist form of propaganda: irrational, emotional appeals to obscure the reality of the situation in order to thwart the removal of illegal aliens. This is a simple matter really. Not everybody in the world can be in our country. There are rules about who can and cannot be here, how they are supposed to enter, and so on. If an individual is not supposed to be here, he needs removing. All the other stuff is noise generated to cloud reason. Mass immigration is a choice. The question citizens need to answer is who makes the choice. Is this what the People want? The polling tells us the answer is no. Trump’s landslide victory in November 2024 tells us the answer is no.
In several essays on Freedom and Reason I have made it plain who is making the choice to flood the United States with foreigners and why. I can summarize those conclusions by putting it this way: If one oppose mass deportation, he is effectively stand with corporate power over against the working class. Mass immigration is a corporate strategy to drive down the wages of the American worker and change the American way of life to advance the wealth and privilege of the global corporate class and entrench elite hegemony over the populace. If you need more evidence of the grand plan look at what they’re doing to Ireland. Still need more evidence? Look at what they’ve done to England, France, and Germany. What more evidence does a person need?
The elite have weaponized the US judiciary to advance a globalist project. They’re trying to force a constitutional crisis.
We’re hearing a great deal about “due process” these days. The pro-immigrant rhetoric is typically wrapped in the Bill of Rights. But what Democrats and the media aren’t telling their audiences—and the People should expect an objective media would tell them this—is that Illegal aliens have sharply limited due process compared to citizens, rights defined by congressional statutes and judicial precedent not enshrined in the Constitution. Why would they be in the Constitution? Only the People enjoy the privileges and immunity of citizenship. It’s their country. What would be the point of citizenship otherwise?
For illegal aliens, the scope of due process is constrained and determined by other powers, particularly in immigration proceedings. The Supreme Court has held that Congress has broad plenary power over immigration allowing it to prescribe the terms of due process for non-citizens. More than this, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Court held that “[i]n the exercise of Congress’ plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in § 212(a)(28) of the Act has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch.”
Rights like hearings, legal representation, or appeals are granted only as provided by statutes like the Immigration and Nationality Act. The president has broad powers under Article II to interpret and execute the laws Congress passes. In Mathews v. Diaz (1976), the Court clarified that non-citizens’ due process rights are subject to congressional limits. This is what democracy looks like.
While illegal aliens facing deportation may receive procedural protections (e.g., a hearing before an immigration judge), these protections are statutory, not constitutional, and can be modified by Congress and are subject to Executive discretion. Expedited removal, authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, limits due process, providing only minimal review. The President can put anybody in charge of an immigration court. Given that very few of those illegally in our country have a legitimate asylum claim, with the right judges in place—i.e., those who serve the interests of the People—the President can rapidly remove millions of illegal aliens.
If the same due process enjoyed by US citizens were extended to illegal immigrants, a President would be unable to remove the ten million foreigners who illegally entered our country under the Biden regime—or the other ten million or so who came before them. How did Clinton remove more than 12 million illegal aliens from America? How did Bush and Obama remove more than 10 million and 5 million respectively? They could do this because they enjoyed the powers I described above. Where was the hysteria over due process then?
This is the goal of lawfare: hijack judicial review with the hope that the Supreme Court will hijacking congressional and executive authority by establishing a procedural framework that grinds Trump’s deportation efforts to a halt. If this happens, then the populace will know that the judiciary is working in tandem with the corporate class to begin the final stages of America’s destruction. The Trump Administration may have returned Blair home in time. But time is running out. There are millions of Blairs still in America—and the corporatocracy wants to keep them here.
freedom and reason 