The Due Process No One Talks About: What Government Owes Its Citizens in the Immigration Debate

The Soliman Case: A Tragedy Rooted in Policy Failure

In the wake of the Boulder attack by Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a troubling pattern has resurfaced — not just in the violence itself, but in the refusal to confront how U.S. immigration failures repeatedly lead to preventable tragedies. Soliman, who entered the country on a temporary tourist visa, violated the terms almost immediately by relocating his family of seven to Colorado, overstaying his visa, and remaining in the country illegally after his work authorization expired. While much attention is being given to his “due process” rights, few are talking about the due process owed to the American people.

Due Process Isn’t One-Way

The phrase “due process” is often invoked to protect individuals, including those in the U.S. unlawfully. Open-border advocates argue that anyone within our borders — no matter how they arrived — is entitled to fair hearings, legal protections, and often indefinite presence while those processes unfold. But this selective application ignores a critical counterpart: due process is not only for individuals. It also applies to systems, laws, and the citizens those laws are meant to protect.

When Law Is Optional, Everyone Pays

The United States has clear immigration laws. These laws reflect the will of the people, passed through Congress, signed by presidents, and funded by taxpayers. The process for entering the country is not optional — it is the legal boundary between national sovereignty and lawlessness. When someone enters on a tourist visa, they agree not to work, not to stay permanently, and not to access public benefits. Soliman violated all of that. Yet instead of enforcing the law, the government allowed him to remain, work, enroll his children in school, and access public infrastructure — until he finally acted on violent intent.

This is not just a failure of border security. It’s a betrayal of due process owed to American citizens.

Plyler v. Doe: The Court Mandate That Opened the Floodgates

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe amplified this failure. In that case, the Court ruled that states must provide free public education to children regardless of their immigration status. The ruling struck down a Texas law that denied funding for educating illegal alien children, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that children should not be punished for the actions of their parents.

But the decision had an unintended effect: it forced taxpayers to provide public education — without exception — to any child physically present in the country, regardless of legality. And yet, the federal government failed to pair this mandate with stronger enforcement to prevent illegal entry or overstays in the first place. In short: if we must educate every child here, then we must control who gets here.

Cheaper than a maple latte. More satisfying than cable news. Support real Vermont journalism for $5/month.

The Taxpayer Is Left Holding the Bill

Colorado taxpayers now foot the bill — to the tune of about $12,000 per student, per year — for Soliman’s five children. That’s $60,000 annually for someone who entered under false pretenses and violated the conditions of his stay. Multiply this by the hundreds of thousands of families who overstay visas or cross illegally, and the burden becomes staggering.

This logic applies beyond education. If we must provide food assistance, medical care, housing support, or even language services to anyone present — regardless of immigration status — then it is absolutely incumbent upon the government to tightly regulate who is allowed in. You cannot force citizens to subsidize a population the government refuses to control. That is taxation without representation in its purest modern form.

Compassion Without Accountability Is a Lie

Instead, we see the inverse. Immigration law is treated like a technicality, while the moral language of “due process” is deployed to argue that almost no one should ever be removed. Politicians and bureaucrats talk endlessly about compassion for those here illegally, but never about compassion for the single mother working two jobs while her taxes educate the children of someone who wasn’t supposed to be here in the first place.

This is the due process imbalance:

Illegal aliens are shielded by the courts.
The federal government is insulated by bureaucracy.
And the American citizen is left holding the bill — and sometimes the body count.

Real Due Process Means Enforcement

True due process would mean upholding the entire immigration framework — protecting borders, enforcing visa terms, and ensuring that taxpayer-funded services are used by those lawfully entitled to them. Anything less is not justice. It’s abandonment.

Until the government reclaims that responsibility, Americans are not getting the due process they deserve. And that should outrage us all — not just once tragedy strikes, but every single day we’re forced to pay for its predictable consequences.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

#fyivt #ImmigrationReform #DueProcessForCitizens #TaxpayerRights

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!