May 2, 2025 by David Silverberg

It’s an iconic scene from an iconic movie.

The 1942 movie Casablanca opens with French Vichy police conducting a criminal investigation. They do this by rounding up people at random, which they call “the usual suspects,” in the city’s bazaar. During the movie, when there’s a particularly serious crime they round up twice the usual number of suspects.

It doesn’t matter who the people are or where they were, they’re all under suspicion.

In contrast, in the United States, an arrest is not supposed to occur until there’s “probable cause” to believe there’s guilt. Once arrested, an accused person is held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

It’s a bedrock American principle.

But along with other bedrock American principles it’s under attack by President Donald Trump and his regime.

This is happening under the umbrella of Trump’s almost psychotic hatred, prejudice and rage against migrants, immigrants and foreigners, a psychosis that he is injecting into American government at all levels.

Nowhere is this hatred, prejudice and rage being more fully embraced than in Florida.

More than half of the more than 500 local police departments and state agencies that have joined President Donald Trump’s drive for mass deportations are in Florida.

During the past month Florida towns and counties were essentially forced to vote to cooperate with federal authorities’ immigration actions under pressure from the governor and the state’s attorney general. No dissenting votes were permitted, as was amply demonstrated in Fort Myers. Both the president and the governor used threats against what they deemed to be “sanctuary cities,” even though no Florida municipality has officially adopted that position. Florida schools and universities were pressured into joining the program as well.

On April 24, federal authorities, with local help, began rounding up around people in Florida for incarceration and deportation and have now detained an estimated total of 1,100 people. In Miami federal authorities expanded the Krome Detention Center in Miami to accommodate their new holdings.  Gov. Ronald DeSantis (R) is even asking the state legislature for money so that he can conduct deportation flights of his own like the ones he ordered in 2023 to Martha’s Vineyard and Washington, DC.

Trump’s stated target are those aliens who have committed criminal offenses while in unauthorized residence in the United States. But it is clear that this effort is going far beyond that, with his consent and encouragement. The setting of quotas for apprehensions and deportations indicates that these actions are not based on evidence and possible individual criminality but on broad, unproven suspicion rooted in, in Trump’s own words, “hatred, prejudice and rage.”

Criminal deportations have been going on for quite some time. For example, President Barack Obama, deported an estimated 5.2 million undocumented aliens, with an emphasis on those with criminal records. But it was done without fanfare or spectacle, a quiet, relentless but also effective drive to weed out criminal migrants while respecting the basic human rights of asylum seekers and immigrants.

The anti-migrant movement is spilling over into an assault on basic rights of all Americans. If allowed to continue, it is going to become far worse. It has the potential to become the greatest tragedy in American history, the end of America’s constitutional republic, the demise of its democratic experiment and the end of American freedom altogether.

Trump’s actions are being billed as an effort to protect the American people—but they are not. In fact, his regime threatens Americans in new and dangerous ways that hark back to the days before American independence.

What’s under attack now is the very bedrock of America, the cornerstones of the American republic, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

So, what are some of the key bedrock principles in danger? Why is this important? And what can be done about it?

(A note on terminology in this article: This article follows definitions that an “immigrant” is someone who has legally been admitted into a country and all “immigrants” are ipso facto legal. (In other words, technically there is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”) A “migrant” is someone who has or is moving. (A useful mnemonic device is to remember that all immigrants are “in,” while all migrants are “moving.”) An “undocumented migrant” is someone who does not have the legal permissions to be present in a country. An “alien” is any foreigner.)

The Blackstone ratio

In Washington, DC, there is a statue of the famous British jurist Sir William Blackstone outside the federal courthouse where so many cases of national importance are tried.

Writing in the 1760s, Blackstone put forward a principle that has been a bedrock of American jurisprudence from the day it was published in his book, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

“…All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” 

Ever since the abuses that led to the American revolution, American law has held that an innocent person should never be held, imprisoned or punished for something that he or she did not in fact do.

The entire American judicial and legal system is based on this principle. All the mechanisms of enforcement, investigation, jury and trial are built around ascertaining beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is truly guilty and that not a single innocent person—not just a citizen—is wrongly punished.

The actions being taken by the Trump regime violate this principle. In their pursuit of undocumented migrants they are sweeping up the innocent as well as the presumptively guilty.

This is why the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland has become so important. Garcia is an undocumented citizen of El Salvador who was arrested in the United States on March 12 on suspicion of being a member of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang. He was deported to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, along with 200 other people seized and deported on suspicion of gang membership. His family denied that he was ever a member of the gang. ICE admitted that his seizure and deportation was the result of an “administrative error.” A federal judge ruled first that he not be deported and then, when he was already in El Salvador, that he be returned. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the regime must “facilitate” his return to the United States for a hearing.

To date he has not been returned, even though he had a visit in El Salvador from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

Garcia is no angel. He has a history of past arrests, detentions and allegations of domestic abuse. But in this instance, he was not given a chance to prove that he was innocent of the suspicions—not even crimes, suspicions—leveled against him.

But this regime, in its defiance and indifference to fundamental principles of human rights, is determined to act on its suspicions without proof, in violation of Blackstone’s dictum. In this it shares the attitude of other authoritarian regimes, which hold that punishing those it pursues is more important than protecting the innocent.  In places like Maoist China, communists reasoned, “Better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person go free.” In Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge held, “better arrest an innocent person than leave a guilty one free.” The Trump regime is now joining the likes of communist China’s Gang of Four and the genocidal regime of Pol Pot in sacrificing presumption of innocence in pursuit of its perceived enemies.

Taking action based on suspicion without protecting the innocent is a fundamental violation of American principles, jurisprudence and basic human decency.

But the means to determine guilt or innocence raises another question of principle.

Due process

An accused person’s right to go through a formal process determining his or her guilt or innocence—what is known as “due process” —is so important, it is enshrined twice in the Constitution of the United States. Nor is it confined just to citizens.

It first appears in the Bill of Rights, Amendment Five:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It next appears in Amendment Fourteen:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Both Stephen Miller, the White House homeland security advisor, and Tom Homan, head of ICE, have denied that non-US citizens are entitled to due process rights.

On April 1, Miller posted on X: “Friendly reminder: If you illegally invaded our country the only ‘process’ you are entitled to is deportation.” Homan agreed in an April 8 interview with Axios: “People who are enemies of the United States don’t have the same level [of] due process [as in] the normal process.”

Clearly the US Supreme Court did not agree with this interpretation when it unanimously ruled that Garcia had to be returned to the United States for a review of his case.

But however the Garcia case plays out, yet another fundamental American principle is being attacked in the Trump regime’s war against foreigners.

Presumption of innocence

As noted at the beginning of this essay, what’s happening now is reminiscent of the roundup of “the usual suspects” portrayed in Casablanca.

In contrast to roundups like that, in the United States, an arrest is not supposed to occur until there’s “probable cause” to believe there’s guilt. Once arrested, an accused person is held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Even though it’s a bedrock American principle, surprisingly, it is not spelled out as such in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. Instead, it has long been derived from the Fifth Amendment’s commitment to due process. It was more explicitly stated in an 1896 Supreme Court case, “Coffin versus the United States,” which held that the US prosecutor had to overcome a “presumption of innocence” to find the defendant guilty.

American law enforcement is not supposed to round up “the usual suspects” as a formal procedure. That sort of thing has indeed happened but it has been considered an anomaly, an aberration and sometimes, a crime.

But presumption of innocence is not being applied for those people being rounded up for incarceration or deportation by this regime. In fact, the opposite is true: they’re being viewed as national enemies and presumed guilty without the chance to prove innocence.

It is true that there are millions of people who are in the United States without authorization. The reason it was tolerated in the past was because their low-cost labor was widely considered valuable to the US economy, particularly in the agricultural sector. There was enforcement at the border but people still entered illegally. Many found jobs, settled down, raised families, started businesses and even paid taxes.  In many quarters, especially by business, they were considered important assets in keeping production high and consumer prices low. They didn’t threaten the country, they built it.

Where there was criminality it was dealt with either by the Border Patrol, federal authorities or local law enforcement. Border authorities and law enforcement also combatted drug smuggling and contraband.

It is not widely known but the border was actually sealed, and quite tightly, after 9/11. For undocumented migrants, many of them seasonal workers, this created a dilemma: they could return to their places of origin, mostly Mexico and Latin America, and possibly never return to the United States. Or else, they could stay in place, hope for the best, and possibly attain citizenship through legal means.

Three times there were attempts in Congress to comprehensively deal with these problems and the undocumented population; in 2007, 2014 and in 2024. In all cases the efforts were scuttled by political opposition. In the last instance senators from both parties had worked out a comprehensive bipartisan agreement but Trump deliberately sank it in order to use the issue in his presidential campaign.

Now Trump has flipped the script: undocumented aliens are classified as enemies, even hostile attackers of the United States. From his very first presidential campaign speech in 2015 when he called all Mexicans “criminals” and “rapists” he has utterly ignored the positive contributions of migrants and immigrants and vastly exaggerated their negative aspects.

By invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 on March 15, Trump declared the United States in a state of “invasion or predatory incursion” by the Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua. He used this to treat his targets as wartime enemies not subject normal rights and protections.

While enhanced enforcement could be conducted in a legal and constitutional manner, it is clear that the hatred, prejudice and rage with which Trump’s anti-immigrant crusade is being conducted is being applied to all foreigners. It is now lapsing over into attacks on innocent, fully naturalized and even native-born American citizens.

In a comprehensive article on the subject, Pro Publica, an independent, nonprofit, investigative newsroom detailed numerous instances of American citizens being swept up in the crackdown (“Some Americans Have Already Been Caught in Trump’s Immigration Dragnet. More Will Be”).

At risk—and resisting

In the current atmosphere, any American could become one of the “usual suspects.”

This kind of conduct puts every American citizen at risk. With the erosion and indifference to constitutional rights and protections, we are already in a time when any American can be picked up at any time for any reason, without a warrant or probable cause.

It is exactly the situation the founders sought to avoid by approving the Bill of Rights. It is oppression.

Prominent opposition voices are already speaking out on this.

On Wednesday, May 1, former Vice President Kamala Harris spoke in San Francisco in her first major speech following her presidential campaign.

“Instead of an administration working to advance America’s highest ideals, we are witnessing the wholesale abandonment of those ideals,” she said. Americans were speaking out to say “it is not ok to detain and disappear American citizens or anyone without due process.”

She encouraged people to organize, mobilize and be active. “Please keep doing what you are doing. and to everyone, let’s lock it in.”

But it was a speech by Gov. Jay Robert “JB” Pritzker (D) of Illinois on Sunday, April 27, that most directly proposed action. Speaking at the McIntyre-Shaheen 100 Club Dinner in Manchester, New Hampshire, Pritzker directly attacked “do-nothing Democrats” and “a culture of timidity.”

But he also directly addressed the attack on the fundamentals.

“It’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law,” he insisted, arguing that this was a question that went beyond immigration to the heart of the Constitution. “Standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the most effective campaign slogan in history,” he said. “Today, it’s an immigrant with a tattoo. Tomorrow, it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Trump.”

His solution? “Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now,” he said. “These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They must understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box … and then punish them at the ballot box.”

Stephen Miller, the White House homeland security advisor, said Pritzker’s call to action “could be construed as inciting violence,” to which Pritzker responded by noting Miller’s support of the violent Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol and saying, “It’s terrible hypocrisy on the part of Stephen Miller and of others who have said somehow that my remarks [are anything other than] about peaceful protest.”

In Southwest Florida, people have been mobilizing and protesting in repeated demonstrations against the regime’s actions. Even in Naples, known for its conservative Trumpism, well-attended demonstrations took place on April 5 and 19th (the 250th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord) and again yesterday, Thursday, May 1.

And there was one bit of good news: On the same day that Trump celebrated his 100 days in office and Harris denounced him, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., ruled that the regime cannot deport Venezuelan migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).

The Act only applies when there is an “armed organized attack on the United States,” stated Rodriguez.

“The historical record renders clear that the president’s invocation of the AEA… is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms,” the judge wrote. “As a result, the court concludes that as a matter of law, the executive branch cannot rely on the AEA… to detain the named petitioners… or to remove them from the country.”

It was one small push back against the regime’s effort to arrest, detain and deport anyone it wants without due process or probable cause or proof of guilt. It only applies to South Texas. It will no doubt be appealed. It may be ignored. But it also shows that a commitment to the Constitution and the bedrock fundamentals of  America is hardly dead.

Clearly, the “usual suspects” aren’t going to go quietly.

Liberty lives in light

© 2025 by David Silverberg

Help defend democracy in Southwest Florida—donate here!