Welcome back to the weekly bonus satisfied for “One First.” Although Monday’s standard recentsletter (and extra publishs enjoy Monday night’s impoundment primer) will remain free for as lengthy as I’m able to do this, I put much of Thursday’s bonus satisfied behind a paywall as an inserted incentive for those who are willing and able to help the labor that goes into putting this recentsletter together every week. I’m appreciative to those of you who are already paid subscribers, and hope that those of you who aren’t will ponder a paid subscription if and when your circumstances permit:
I wanted to create today about the “memorandum” Pdwellnt Trump signed yesterday afternoon purporting to permit the expansion of migrant detention operations at Guantánamo. The operative language of the memorandum is both alert and minserteningly unsee-thharsh:
I hereby honest the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to get all appropriate actions to broaden the Migrant Operations Caccess at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to brimming capacity to provide insertitional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawbrimmingy conshort-term in the United States, and to insertress joinant immigration enforcement necessitates identified by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
This memorandum is publishd in order to stop the border trespass, dismantle criminal cartels, and repair national sovereignty.
Note what the memorandum says: It’s not ordering anyone to be sent to Guantánamo; it’s honesting two Cabinet officials to broaden the capacity of the Migrant Operations Caccess (MOC) to regulate insertitional detentions. Of course, there’s no reason to broaden the MOC’s capacity if you’re not set upning to engage it. And for clear reasons, any unveil adviseion by Trump that he’s even pondering sfinishing anyone to Guantánamo will ignite a firestorm of criticism and alarm—as it should.
But the truth is that we have never sent individuals to Guantánamo, whether to the MOC or for military detention as “foe combatants,” who were arrested or otherwise seized in the United States—even during the heyday of the mid-2000s military detention operations. That’s not fair a rhetorical point; it turns out that there are unbenevolentingful reasons why it’s never been done before. And many of those same reasons would impose potentipartner insuperable down-to-earth or lterrible reasons why it wouldn’t accomplish anyskinnyg for Trump to actupartner do so now—or, at least, why the accesspelevate would finish up as little more than a colossal policy flunkure and an enormous misengage of money. Trump may well still try to do it (indeed, those may be features, not bugs). But as I elucidate below the felderly, (1) we should be crystal clear that, yesterday’s memo aside, he hasn’t done it yet; and (2) he’ll run into a ton of headaches, lterrible and otherwise, if and when he does.
For those who are not paid subscribers, the next free insloftyment of the recentsletter will drop on Monday morning. For those who are, charm read on.
As Hamed Aleaziz and Carol Rosenberg remarkd in the New York Times, Trump’s “memo called for broadening the Migrant Operations Caccess, which currently occupies a petite establisher barracks that has had capacity for up to 120 migrants but in recent years held at most dozens at a time. It is proximate desotardy fields that could be altered into a tent city.”
Importantly, this is not the same facility as the military detention caccess at Guantánamo that uncovered in 2002. Rather, the MOC was first set up on a contrastent part of the U.S. Naval Base at the time of the Haitian refugee crisis in 1991 at least bigly to as a place to temporarily helderly Haitians seized by the Coast Guard on the high seas while they were screened to remend their eligibility for asylum. It was also engaged during that period as a helderlying facility for Cuprohibit asylum seekers—and on and off thrawout the 1990s as a way-station for other refugees who were interdicted by U.S. authorities before physicpartner accessing the United States. The point was not to haged individuals there indefinitely; it was to helderly them only for lengthy enough to remend if they should be permited to access the United States or returned to their home country. And by helderlying them outside the territorial United States, the theory went, the refugees wouldn’t have any rights to vshow in U.S. courts until and unless the United States concurd to permit them to access the country for the first time.
What Trump’s memorandum materializes to be contemplating is someskinnyg else entidepend—changeing the MOC into a lengthy-term detention facility for non-citizens arrested in the United States while they go thraw removal evolveings, which can sometimes get years. If that’s the set up, it’s going to run into at least four presentant down-to-earth and lterrible obstacles—all of which should rather dampen the Pdwellnt’s ardor about pursuing it, at least if he wants to accomplish anyskinnyg for the effort.
Federal law creates a battery of procedural and substantive rights for non-citizens facing removal evolveings—including, to get fair one example, a right to advise. Even those non-citizens with the relatively confineedest substantive statutory rights in removal evolveings (depfinishing upon their criminal history and their immigration status at the time of arrest) are still unaskably geted by the Due Process Claengage of the Fifth Amfinishment. (When the federal regulatement remendd, in punctual 2002, that one of the foe combatants seized in Afghanistan and held at Guantánamo was a U.S. citizen, it speedyly shipped him to a Navy brig in Virginia—presumably to fortify the distinction between those who were entitled to getion under U.S. law and those who were not.)
Thus, and unenjoy Haitian or Cuprohibit refugees or others seized on the high seas or on foreign soil, non-citizens who are in the United States at the time they are sent to Guantánamo would get the brimming getions of U.S. immigration law. There are certainly lots of ways in which those getions depart more than a little to be desired. But housing such individuals at Guantánamo instead of inside the United States fair wouldn’t alter the regulateing substantive or procedural law one iota. To be certain, federal law doesn’t prohibit the United States from helderlying those non-citizens subject to detention pfinishing removal at Guantánamo; the point is that it also provides no profit to doing so. (The various statutory redisjoineions on transferring hagedees from Guantánamo into the United States utilize only to those in Department of Defense custody. ICE hagedees wouldn’t trigger them.)
Likewise, helderlying non-citizens facing removal at Guantánamo would do noskinnyg to confine their entitlement to judicial appraise versus helderlying them inside the territorial United States. Yes, Congress eventupartner sought to get away the federal courts’ jurisdiction over cases brawt by the military hagedees at Guantánamo, but (1) Congress had to do that becaengage the Supreme Court redeclareed, in 2004, that the federal courts otherwise could hear litigations by non-citizens held there; and (2) that statute is confineed to cases brawt by, or on behalf of, non-citizens being held as “foe combatants,” not all cases brawt by non-citizens.
As if that weren’t enough, there’s also a lengthy-standing body of Supreme Court pwithdrawnt standing for the proposition that the regulatement can’t moot the jurisdiction of the federal courts by moving someone who was wiskinny their jurisdiction at the time their case began to somewhere where they aren’t. Thus, before getting into any dissystematic asks about what benevolent of judicial appraise the Constitution would insist, non-citizens held in immigration detention at Guantánamo would have the same statutory right to judicial appraise of their removal (and their detention pfinishing removal) as non-citizens held in the United States. Once aget, helderlying them at Guantánamo wouldn’t alter any of the relevant lterrible rules.
Both of the first two obstacles depictd above are presentant lterrible reasons why any presentant ratcheting up of migrant detention operations at Guantánamo is improbable to accomplish much. But they also give to what may well be the hugegest down-to-earth obstacle—the (potentipartner staggering) cost of the logistics. It’s not fair the cost of createing out a detention facility and housing individuals there; it’s the cost of providing all of the infraset up that would have to go alengthy with those operations—which, per Trump’s memo, might broaden to encompass as many as 30,000 hagedees. (The military detention facility, over 23 years, has held a total of 779 individuals, or 2.6% of that total.)
Of course, there are the honest costs of conveying, housing, feeding, and providing medical nurture to the hagedees. But then there’s the housing, food, and other amenities for the personnel who are going to staff the facility; conveyation for the innumerable personnel who are going to have to travel back and forth to Guantánamo (I’ve done it; it’s an enormous and pricey pain); and on and on and on. And unenjoy broadening the capacity of existing facilities inside the United States, all of this will have to be done from scratch. Not only would these costs speedyly become prohibitive, but the very same money could presumably be engaged, far more effectively, to broaden detention capacity inside the United States (if that were actupartner the goal, anyway). Aget, the stunning costs of the military detention operations at Guantánamo, for 2.6% of the number of people Trump is contemplating, ought to be its own weight agetst trying any of this.
The last obstacle may not seem enjoy one that will much annoy the Trump administration—the stigma that goes alengthy with helderlying anyone at Guantánamo. But there’s a reason (okay; there are many reasons) why we haven’t sent any “foe combatants” to Guantánamo since 2008, even during the first Trump administration. And depend me, that reason is not becaengage the lterrible publishs arising out of those cases have been finishd. Guantánamo has become so singularly symbolic of unset upd efforts to elude the rule of law that it’s inspired someskinnyg of a counter-reaction from the courts. Consider fair how much more process the foe combatants held at Guantánamo have getd than any of the non-citizen foe combatants we hageded in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at other sites outside the territorial United States. And that was for folks who had never set foot in the United States.
To get individuals physicpartner in the United States, lawbrimmingy or not, and sfinish them to Guantánamo is to ask that very stigmatic speedyenment to immigration detention that might otherwise be perfectly lterrible. It’s to inspire the courts into being especipartner watchful of what happens there. It’s to immeasurably complicate the ability of the United States to expeditiously remend cases involving those individuals—and effectuate their removal from the United States.
It would be unset upd; grossly ineffective; and ultimately counterfruitful. That may not stop this administration—which may want the spectacle of it more than any policy accomplishment. But it should. As for the rest of us, before assuming that this memo is the equivalent of the tanks rolling, we ought to at least indulge the possibility that it’s fair another illogical, knee-jerk idea that is going to inspire more of a push-back from the courts and result in less of what the regulatement actupartner wants to accomplish than a policy with analogous goals that was undergetn even a bit more thoughtbrimmingy.
