April 28, 2025 • 8 mins
Illegal immigration is primarily treated as a civil offense.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Brian Mudshow podcast is driven by Brayman Motor Cars.
My family is a Brayman Motor Cars family. Your family
should be to visit Braymanmotorcars dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
You have questions, Brian has answers. It's time for today's
Q and A of today. This is the Brian Mud Show.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Today's Q and A cant ex post facto laws be
used to speed up Trump's deportation plans and unjel you
here ex post facto, what.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Comes to mind?
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I have no idea for me.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
It's mister Roboto because of rhymes. Ex post facto, Sir Roboto.
So brought to you by me. Listen ashes, check mark collections,
and each day I feature a listener question that is
sent by one of these methods. You may email me
Brian Mud at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me up on
social at Brian mud Radio, and you may also use
the iHeart Radio talkback feature. Now, a couple of things
(00:55):
we would love it if you would go into the
iHeartRadio app make w Jaya or via Patriot your number
one pre set. While you're doing that, if you make
the Bright mun Show podcast my podcast your number two
pre set, that would be awesome that we we are
always there for you for free, so you can listen
on demand.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
And then you'll also see.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
A little microphone button while you're doing all that, and
if you tap it, you can lay the message right
the air Force. Maybe something for a future Q and
A just like this Sholeman.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Hey, Brian, name is Joel here, trying to see if.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
These new laws, the immigration laws and all that are
considered ex post facto, which means can you create a
new law to charge somebody for something they committed previously.
Please have somebody weigh in on this. Thanks Joel.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
The listeners very much approved of by Joel Malkin.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I like it you don't hear my name as often
as I'd like to hear my name.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Well, do you really want more Joels though?
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Because that way you're a bit more distinctive, right, you
stand Outlabama.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Mike confusing because when you reference Joel, well.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
I mean, like you know, and I'm just speaking as
a Brian, because you know, you have a lot of
brains out there, and then you know, mind is spelled
with an eye. You get a lot of people there
with the y and then most people seemingly will misspell
my name.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Yeah, I know if this Joel sounds pretty educated, he does.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
I would say so.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, And I appreciate this next level question in the
ongoing debate about immigration laws and deportation procedures, as the
Trump administration continues to butt up against a relentless effort
by the left, including leftist activist judges seeking to block
President Trump's deportation plans. Now, before addressing the question, let's
just kind of take a step back. I mean, I
(02:40):
have a feeling there's some folks that could use so
little little splain. And when it comes to ex post facto,
the if the term expost facto is foreign to you,
good reason for it. It is it's Latin Latin for
from a thing done afterward, which makes sense since we're
talking about like retroactive laws here. So when applied to
(03:06):
the illegal realm, ex post factor laws will retroactively make
something that, for example, might have been previously legal or
not required illegal, And the Constitution places a lot of
limitations on this, a lot of limitations on this.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Laws are not able to be used for.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Political retribution, for example, or just any number of other
potential abuses.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Now, the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Most recently ruled in favor of the limited use of
ex post factor laws in two thousand and three, leading
to what I believe. I believe this is the case.
The most recent ex post factor law in two thousand
and six, and it's one that people, especially in this.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Community, are familiar with.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
It pretty much literally hits home the Adam Walsh Child
Protections and Safety Act of two thousand and six.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I was named for the son of John Walsh.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Of course, South America's Most Wanted and everything else that
came out of South Florida from that situation. That Act,
in particular, the Adam Walsh Act, it established the National
Sex Offender Registry.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
You know these days were used to it.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Right, anytime there's sex offender that moves into your neighborhood,
you're sent a notification about them being there, and you know,
they always have to stay in this national database. That
as an example of an expost factory law goes like this.
When these sex offenders were convicted and sentenced, originally, you know,
(04:40):
prior to two thousand and six, they were not made
to comply with this registry. However, they ended up having
to comply with it after they were re at leased
from prison. So that is an example of going back
after the fact and adding in a requirement that wouldn't
have been there at the time of conviction or sentencing. Now,
(05:04):
as we've got to move this forward towards immigration cases,
can this be done? What does this look like for
illegal immigration in particular? The answer is ex post facto
can only be used when you're talking about a criminal offense.
It can't be used for civil offenses, and illegal immigration
(05:26):
most of the time is not considered a criminal defense.
Here's the breakout. Illegal immigration is handled as a civil
offense when there is unlawful presence defined as entering the
US without authorization, like for example, crossing the border without
(05:48):
an inspection or overstaying the visa. That is considered a
civil violation under the Immigration and Nationality Act, where you
get into criminal offenses, and these are where you could
have exposed factor laws if you wanted to illegal entry.
When you have somebody that is getting in at a
place other than a designated port of entry. These are
(06:09):
the people that are not trying to find a border
patrol agent, the people that are not looking to go
a ssay as sendom do not those people. Those people
are civil offenders. Potentially the people that are really trying
to get around anybody, any officials, and that goes for
illegal re entry. Other examples in the immigration realm any
(06:32):
smuggling of aliens that's obviously criminal, using fraudulent documents, criminal offense, identity, theft.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
You name it, all those things.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
So the bottom line is this, most immigration violations lead
to civil consequences, and deportation even is considered civil rather
than criminal prosecution. However, the government can choose to pursue
criminal charges in cases like illegal entry based upon specific
enforcement priorities.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So in the answer to today's question, answer.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Is that, yeah, I mean, you could have exposed factor
laws that could target illegal immigrants, but it really isn't
going to achieve what I think you're going for here,
which is trying to deal with these deportations, handling of
these situations in a more efficient manner. When you hear
the term criminal illegal immigrants, and that is used for
(07:23):
those who have committed criminal offenses once inside the United States,
that is actually a technically correct term since other offenders
are civil offenders. But to give you an idea, over
the past decade, anywhere from ninety five to ninety nine
percent of all illegal immigration cases have been handled as
(07:44):
civil violations, and by the way, for the purpose of
speeding up deportations. That's a good thing, because, oh my gosh,
could you imagine if everyone were handled as a criminal case,
you never have anything else going on in courts across
this country.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Even without that, they still need due says. Apparently, yes,
let them all in unvetted, but we've got to vet
them all on the way out.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Well said Sir
The Brian Mudshow podcast is driven by Brayman Motor Cars.
My family is a Brayman Motor Cars family. Your family
should be to visit Braymanmotorcars dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
You have questions, Brian has answers. It's time for today's
Q and A of today. This is the Brian Mud Show.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Today's Q and A cant ex post facto laws be
used to speed up Trump's deportation plans and unjel you
here ex post facto, what.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Comes to mind?
Speaker 3 (00:32):
I have no idea for me.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
It's mister Roboto because of rhymes. Ex post facto, Sir Roboto.
So brought to you by me. Listen ashes, check mark collections,
and each day I feature a listener question that is
sent by one of these methods. You may email me
Brian Mud at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me up on
social at Brian mud Radio, and you may also use
the iHeart Radio talkback feature. Now, a couple of things
(00:55):
we would love it if you would go into the
iHeartRadio app make w Jaya or via Patriot your number
one pre set. While you're doing that, if you make
the Bright mun Show podcast my podcast your number two
pre set, that would be awesome that we we are
always there for you for free, so you can listen
on demand.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
And then you'll also see.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
A little microphone button while you're doing all that, and
if you tap it, you can lay the message right
the air Force. Maybe something for a future Q and
A just like this Sholeman.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Hey, Brian, name is Joel here, trying to see if.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
These new laws, the immigration laws and all that are
considered ex post facto, which means can you create a
new law to charge somebody for something they committed previously.
Please have somebody weigh in on this. Thanks Joel.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
The listeners very much approved of by Joel Malkin.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
I like it you don't hear my name as often
as I'd like to hear my name.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Well, do you really want more Joels though?
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Because that way you're a bit more distinctive, right, you
stand Outlabama.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Mike confusing because when you reference Joel, well.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
I mean, like you know, and I'm just speaking as
a Brian, because you know, you have a lot of
brains out there, and then you know, mind is spelled
with an eye. You get a lot of people there
with the y and then most people seemingly will misspell
my name.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Yeah, I know if this Joel sounds pretty educated, he does.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
I would say so.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, And I appreciate this next level question in the
ongoing debate about immigration laws and deportation procedures, as the
Trump administration continues to butt up against a relentless effort
by the left, including leftist activist judges seeking to block
President Trump's deportation plans. Now, before addressing the question, let's
just kind of take a step back. I mean, I
(02:40):
have a feeling there's some folks that could use so
little little splain. And when it comes to ex post facto,
the if the term expost facto is foreign to you,
good reason for it. It is it's Latin Latin for
from a thing done afterward, which makes sense since we're
talking about like retroactive laws here. So when applied to
(03:06):
the illegal realm, ex post factor laws will retroactively make
something that, for example, might have been previously legal or
not required illegal, And the Constitution places a lot of
limitations on this, a lot of limitations on this.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
Laws are not able to be used for.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Political retribution, for example, or just any number of other
potential abuses.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Now, the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Most recently ruled in favor of the limited use of
ex post factor laws in two thousand and three, leading
to what I believe. I believe this is the case.
The most recent ex post factor law in two thousand
and six, and it's one that people, especially in this.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Community, are familiar with.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
It pretty much literally hits home the Adam Walsh Child
Protections and Safety Act of two thousand and six.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I was named for the son of John Walsh.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Of course, South America's Most Wanted and everything else that
came out of South Florida from that situation. That Act,
in particular, the Adam Walsh Act, it established the National
Sex Offender Registry.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
You know these days were used to it.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Right, anytime there's sex offender that moves into your neighborhood,
you're sent a notification about them being there, and you know,
they always have to stay in this national database. That
as an example of an expost factory law goes like this.
When these sex offenders were convicted and sentenced, originally, you know,
(04:40):
prior to two thousand and six, they were not made
to comply with this registry. However, they ended up having
to comply with it after they were re at leased
from prison. So that is an example of going back
after the fact and adding in a requirement that wouldn't
have been there at the time of conviction or sentencing. Now,
(05:04):
as we've got to move this forward towards immigration cases,
can this be done? What does this look like for
illegal immigration in particular? The answer is ex post facto
can only be used when you're talking about a criminal offense.
It can't be used for civil offenses, and illegal immigration
(05:26):
most of the time is not considered a criminal defense.
Here's the breakout. Illegal immigration is handled as a civil
offense when there is unlawful presence defined as entering the
US without authorization, like for example, crossing the border without
(05:48):
an inspection or overstaying the visa. That is considered a
civil violation under the Immigration and Nationality Act, where you
get into criminal offenses, and these are where you could
have exposed factor laws if you wanted to illegal entry.
When you have somebody that is getting in at a
place other than a designated port of entry. These are
(06:09):
the people that are not trying to find a border
patrol agent, the people that are not looking to go
a ssay as sendom do not those people. Those people
are civil offenders. Potentially the people that are really trying
to get around anybody, any officials, and that goes for
illegal re entry. Other examples in the immigration realm any
(06:32):
smuggling of aliens that's obviously criminal, using fraudulent documents, criminal offense, identity, theft.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
You name it, all those things.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
So the bottom line is this, most immigration violations lead
to civil consequences, and deportation even is considered civil rather
than criminal prosecution. However, the government can choose to pursue
criminal charges in cases like illegal entry based upon specific
enforcement priorities.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
So in the answer to today's question, answer.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Is that, yeah, I mean, you could have exposed factor
laws that could target illegal immigrants, but it really isn't
going to achieve what I think you're going for here,
which is trying to deal with these deportations, handling of
these situations in a more efficient manner. When you hear
the term criminal illegal immigrants, and that is used for
(07:23):
those who have committed criminal offenses once inside the United States,
that is actually a technically correct term since other offenders
are civil offenders. But to give you an idea, over
the past decade, anywhere from ninety five to ninety nine
percent of all illegal immigration cases have been handled as
(07:44):
civil violations, and by the way, for the purpose of
speeding up deportations. That's a good thing, because, oh my gosh,
could you imagine if everyone were handled as a criminal case,
you never have anything else going on in courts across
this country.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Even without that, they still need due says. Apparently, yes,
let them all in unvetted, but we've got to vet
them all on the way out.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Well said Sir
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com