Trump: We must ‘immediately’ return undocumented immigrants ‘with no judges or court cases’

[ABX]

I'm going to agree they were highly educated men.  I also believe they wrote "citizen" when they meant "citizen".  And they wrote "any person" when they meant "any person".

As that amendment continues beyond the first paragraph, they continue to use both words for different requirements.  Representation is based upon the number of persons.  To be an elected federal official, you have to be a citizen.

As I mentioned above with the Madison reference, at the time, many people in this country were not considered citizens and the laws for how one becomes a citizen and who were very arbitrary. Slaves weren't, Native Americans weren't. In some States, being of German descent or Spanish descent you weren't. In some States, Women weren't citizens. The State governments were not consistent who they considered citizens. If Constitutional protections applied only to Citizens, it would have been willy nilly chaos as to application of the law. They didn't have formal 'ports of entry' to know if you were a legal citizen. Hell, the people who were here for centuries before our nation was established weren't even considered citizens (they were the 'illegals' of the time) even though it was their land we were on.

I would hate to see a future where the government decides to just declare large swaths of the population 'non citizens' and strip them of Constitutional protections. You don't say a loyalty oath- bam, you aren't a citizen. You don't pay the proper tribute, bam, you aren't a citizen. You own a firearm and believe in the 2nd Amendment, bam, you aren't a citizen.  You speak out against the government, bam, you aren't a citizen. Now, all you non-citizens have no Constitutional protections..

Don't say it won't happen because it has happened before.

[thackney]

@thackney show me how and where that applies to people who break our laws to get here.

Back at ya.  Show me how and where criminals are not subject to due process.  I believe when they wrote "any person" they meant "any person".

What I also believe this means, we really need to control our borders and not let free passage across them.

As @Bigun pointed out all they have to do to get all of what you claim they have...is to enter via a legal port of entry.

But they don't.  They come here illegally and violate our long standing immigration laws in order to gain access.

Agreed.  I'm not in any way suggesting they get a free pass.  Send them to the back of the line at the port of entry if they want in.

How do we handle actual citizens at the border?  What happens if they don't have documentation?  There has to be some process.

[Bigun]

As I mentioned above with the Madison reference, at the time, many people in this country were not considered citizens and the laws for how one becomes a citizen and who were very arbitrary. Slaves weren't, Native Americans weren't. In some States, being of German descent or Spanish descent you weren't. In some States, Women weren't citizens. The State governments were not consistent who they considered citizens. If Constitutional protections applied only to Citizens, it would have been willy nilly chaos as to application of the law. They didn't have formal 'ports of entry' to know if you were a legal citizen. Hell, the people who were here for centuries before our nation was established weren't even considered citizens (they were the 'illegals' of the time) even though it was their land we were on.

I would hate to see a future where the government decides to just declare large swaths of the population 'non citizens' and strip them of Constitutional protections. You don't say a loyalty oath- bam, you aren't a citizen. You don't pay the proper tribute, bam, you aren't a citizen. You own a firearm and believe in the 2nd Amendment, bam, you aren't a citizen.  You speak out against the government, bam, you aren't a citizen. Now, all you non-citizens have no Constitutional protections..

Don't say it won't happen because it has happened before.

 hate to be the one to break this to you but James Madison was LONG in his grave when the 14th amendment was written

[ABX]

Back at ya.  Show me how and where criminals are not subject to due process.  I believe when they wrote "any person" they meant "any person".

What I also believe this means, we really need to control our borders and not let free passage across them.

Agreed.  I'm not in any way suggesting they get a free pass.  Send them to the back of the line at the port of entry if they want in.

How do we handle actual citizens at the border?  What happens if they don't have documentation?  There has to be some process.

Not just that. What happens if a free and legal US Citizen, who happens to be in the US on property close to the Roosevelt Reservation (think of a rancher or hiker as an example) asserts their 5th Amendment Rights and just doesn't want to answer the question if they are a citizen. They have every right to not answer the question. If they are not doing something (such as driving) that requires identification, they are not required to have ID on them.

I can imagine an old rancher who just doesn't like the feds, giving them the bird if they demand to know if he is a citizen and to 'show them his papers'. Are they going to assume by his non-answering he isn't a citizen and toss him over the border with ono due process?

[ABX]

hate to be the one to break this to you but James Madison was LONG in his grave when the 14th amendment was written

I'm referencing the 5th Amendment.


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.

[Bigun]

I'm referencing the 5th Amendment.


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.

OK. So what the hell doe that have to do with stopping an illegal invader at the border and sending him back?

[ABX]

OK. So what the hell doe that have to do with stopping an illegal invader at the border and sending him back?

If they are caught at the border, before they enter the US (or even at the Roosevelt Reservation which is considered a buffer zone) they can be turned away. If they are already in the country, we, by law, have to determine if they are a citizen and give them the due process to at the very least, make that case.

How do you know someone near the border is an 'illegal invader' versus say, a rancher or hiker? We can't 'guess' if they aren't a citizen or assume, just like we can't assume someone walking in the desert near the border is an illegal and just 'shoot them' as some have suggested.  It doesn't have to be a long, drawn out process, but, for example, if someone is hiking a mile into the US border, maybe even in an area where there is a lot of illegal traffic, we can't assume simply by their presence or heritage they aren't here legally, at that point they are afforded some sort of due process.

There has to be a middle ground between the months and or years of legal paperwork and just sending everyone suspected of being illegal back with zero due process.

[txradioguy]

Actually as Andy McCarthy pointed out the other day...we're looking at all of this through the wrong lens.  This isn't a legal crisis.  The law always seems to be a step behind the next crisis on the horizon.

What we're dealing with here is a National Security crisis.

So instead of looking at this form a legal stand point...lets turn again to the Constitution

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Right now we're dealing with a at times violent invasion of our Southern Border.  And it needs to be handled swiftly and quickly and without all the legal back and forth about "due process".

Shut the border down...now

Worry about the legal wrangling AFTER we have the crisis under control.

Right now we're trying to assemble a jet plane while it's in flight.

[ABX]

So if we do consider this, by legal definition, an actual invasion, go to congress and have war declared.

Then all of this is moot. Civil liberties can be stripped and a 'shoot on sight' policy as some seem to want can be enacted.

Right now 'invasion' is a term we use in the civilian/internet sphere but is not legally recognized as such. Legally recognize it as such and declare war, then we won't be having this discussion.

[jpsb]

OK. So what the hell doe that have to do with stopping an illegal invader at the border and sending him back?

Arguing with a Trump hater is a waste of time. They are fine with turning the USA into a third world
s**t hole as long as they can say "I told you so". Illegal invaders do not get due process since they
are not here legally. And therefore are "not under the jurisdiction of". Border patrol agents are
well train to tell the difference between a citizen and an illegal. The Constitution is not a suicide
pack.

[roamer_1]

Actually as Andy McCarthy pointed out the other day...we're looking at all of this through the wrong lens.  This isn't a legal crisis.  The law always seems to be a step behind the next crisis on the horizon.

What we're dealing with here is a National Security crisis.

So instead of looking at this form a legal stand point...lets turn again to the Constitution

Right now we're dealing with a at times violent invasion of our Southern Border.  And it needs to be handled swiftly and quickly and without all the legal back and forth about "due process".

Shut the border down...now

Worry about the legal wrangling AFTER we have the crisis under control.

Right now we're trying to assemble a jet plane while it's in flight.

No. You only have two means by which government has the right to act: Just Cause or Due Process. War or Law.

Which do you prefer?

[roamer_1]

Illegal invaders do not get due process since they are not here legally. And therefore are "not under the jurisdiction of".

Bullcrap. If there is no jurisdiction, there is no arrest. If they can be arrested, then they are within the jurisdiction of the arresting authority.

[txradioguy]

So if we do consider this, by legal definition, an actual invasion, go to congress and have war declared.

Doesn't need to.  Just put the military on the border.  The Army Reserve is largely Combat Service and Support...MP's fall under that.  Call up units like the 200th MP Command or the 333rd MP Brigade.  They are still federally controlled and won't get pulled home at the political whim of a Liberal governor like we're seeing with the National Guard units.

Saturate the border with enough soldiers...CBP agents and state police units to prevent the current human wave invasion we have going on right now.

Then all of this is moot. Civil liberties can be stripped and a 'shoot on sight' policy as some seem to want can be enacted.

This isn't the Civil War.

Right now 'invasion' is a term we use in the civilian/internet sphere but is not legally recognized as such. Legally recognize it as such and declare war, then we won't be having this discussion.

That's because the left and the media are controlling the narrative.  We have to reject their definition of what's going on.  We have to quit dealing with this on the Liberals emotional level and deal with the cold hard facts of the situation.

We can have humanitarian sympathy for the plight of migrants fleeing dystopian societies while still recognizing that the United States government exists to protect the American people.

Call this what it is...an invasion of our Southern Border and secure the border and American Citizens accordingly.

[ABX]

The Constitution is not a suicide
pack.

I love it when people say the Constitution is not a suicide pack(sic). So which parts of the Constitution are you willing to give up? We know it is the 5th and 14th Amendments?

What if next it is the 1st or 2nd Amendments?  What if the next argument is that there is too much gang violence along the border and everyone within 50 miles must be stripped of 2nd Amendment Rights because, after all, 'The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact'?

What is the line you are willing to cross in taking a sharpie to sections of the Constitution?

[roamer_1]

Doesn't need to.  Just put the military on the border.  The Army Reserve is largely Combat Service and Support...MP's fall under that.  Call up units like the 200th MP Command or the 333rd MP Brigade.  They are still federally controlled and won't get pulled home at the political whim of a Liberal governor like we're seeing with the National Guard units.

Saturate the border with enough soldiers...CBP agents and state police units to prevent the current human wave invasion we have going on right now.

This isn't the Civil War.

That's because the left and the media are controlling the narrative.  We have to reject their definition of what's going on.  We have to quit dealing with this on the Liberals emotional level and deal with the cold hard facts of the situation.

We can have humanitarian sympathy for the plight of migrants fleeing dystopian societies while still recognizing that the United States government exists to protect the American people.

Call this what it is...an invasion of our Southern Border and secure the border and American Citizens accordingly.

NO. Military do not operate under law.
What you suggest is a war footing. That is suspension of law, and operations under ROE, and military tribunals. Not the same thing.

[txradioguy]

No. You only have two means by which government has the right to act: Just Cause or Due Process. War or Law.

Which do you prefer?

Neither.  Because it's not an armed conflict war...unless we have another round of instances where Mexican Army units crossed out border and engaged CBP agents to provide cover for drug runners...then that is an act of war and should be responded to accordingly.

What we have is a security issue.  Specifically the security of our Southern Border.  The Federal Government has an obligation to secure the borders and protect the American Citizens before any consideration for any other person is made.

The problem for our side is we've bought into the Liberals emotional argument...and it's not allowing people to see this issue clearly and for what it really is.

If we don't have borders...if we don't enforce the laws on the books...the rest of this debate is meaningless.

[txradioguy]

NO. Military do not operate under law.
What you suggest is a war footing. That is suspension of law, and operations under ROE, and military tribunals. Not the same thing.

No it's not.  And what you're suggesting is moving into the silly.  Especially since the Army Reserve has no actual combat troops...those got moved th the National Guard thanks to Billy Jeff.

And the call up authority of the Reserves isn't exclusive to times of war.  They can also be called up in times of national emergency.

Wouldn't you agree that what's happening at the border is a national emergency?


They can also be called up to aid in counter drug operations.  Hell the amount of drugs coming in during this flood of illegals is staggering...call what the MP's would be doing a counter drug op and be done with it.

But at the end of the day...the President can call up the Army Reserve without a declaration of war to aid in domestic situations.

And this is a situation where they are desperately needed.

[roamer_1]

Neither.  Because it's not an armed conflict war...

There is no such condition. It is either/or. Either you operate under the law of the land, or it becomes a military corridor, under ROE, and Military Courts. One or the other.

What we have is a security issue.  Specifically the security of our Southern Border.  The Federal Government has an obligation to secure the borders and protect the American Citizens before any consideration for any other person is made.

Right - and I am fine with all that. And I DO think it is a federal responsibility.
But we are talking about suspending due process. That's crazy. If you are operating under the law, there must be due process, by necessity.

OR you are operating under military jurisdiction and military law (which still affords some sort of due process). less rights, and many rights suspended.

I am FINE with a military corridor, but then declare it, and load the border with bases.

But what you are suggesting is in fact a suspension of habeas corpus and operation under the color of law. That is not tolerable.

The problem for our side is we've bought into the Liberals emotional argument...and it's not allowing people to see this issue clearly and for what it really is.

If we don't have borders...if we don't enforce the laws on the books...the rest of this debate is meaningless.

I have bought into no such thing, and I largely agree with you (as I nearly always do), at least in spirit. But you cannot remove due process as a technical matter, without removing habeas corpus, which is by definition operating under the color of law.

The only other option is in fact military law. WAR.

[roamer_1]

No it's not.  And what you're suggesting is moving into the silly.  Especially since the Army Reserve has no actual combat troops...those got moved th the National Guard thanks to Billy Jeff.

And the call up authority of the Reserves isn't exclusive to times of war.  They can also be called up in times of national emergency.

Wouldn't you agree that what's happening at the border is a national emergency?


They can also be called up to aid in counter drug operations.  Hell the amount of drugs coming in during this flood of illegals is staggering...call what the MP's would be doing a counter drug op and be done with it.

But at the end of the day...the President can call up the Army Reserve without a declaration of war to aid in domestic situations.

And this is a situation where they are desperately needed.

I am fine with using reserves as reinforcements. but then they are operating within the law, and there must therefore be due process - That is the very basis of law. Their (military) jurisdiction is adjunct - operating under the authority of governor or county sheriff... both requiring due process.

[txradioguy]

There is no such condition. It is either/or. Either you operate under the law of the land, or it becomes a military corridor, under ROE, and Military Courts. One or the other.

No it is not an either or situation.  Anything short of search, seizure and arrest and even the active duty military can help secure the border without a needless declaration of war being declared or running afoul the Posse Comitatus Act.

I have bought into no such thing, and I largely agree with you (as I nearly always do), at least in spirit. But you cannot remove due process as a technical matter, without removing habeas corpus, which is by definition operating under the color of law.

The military can legally be used at the border without any of the things you listed happening.

The only other option is in fact military law. WAR.

Sorry my friend you're wrong.  There are other options.

[txradioguy]

I am fine with using reserves as reinforcements. but then they are operating within the law, and there must therefore be due process - That is the very basis of law. Their (military) jurisdiction is adjunct - operating under the authority of governor or county sheriff... both requiring due process.

Actually at the border they'd fall under the command and control of the CBP.  Reserve soldiers...as opposed to the National Guard aren't under the Governor's authority.  They are still federally controlled.

They can do everything but apprehend and not violate any restrictions on troops operating inside our borders.

[aligncare]

Arguing with a Trump hater is a waste of time. They are fine with turning the USA into a third world
s**t hole as long as they can say "I told you so". Illegal invaders do not get due process since they
are not here legally. And therefore are "not under the jurisdiction of". Border patrol agents are
well train to tell the difference between a citizen and an illegal. The Constitution is not a suicide
pack.

They like to keep the focus on the president’s tweets and his demeanor, in other words, irrelevancies.

Meanwhile, no one mentions Trump fixed the corporate tax rate, and this year alone, only 6 months in, we repatriated $300 billion from overseas banks. Since passing the tax bill the treasury grew by $8 or $9 trillions.

But you won’t hear Lester Holt or Rachel Maddow cover that story on their fake news shows.

[roamer_1]

Actually at the border they'd fall under the command and control of the CBP.  Reserve soldiers...as opposed to the National Guard aren't under the Governor's authority.  They are still federally controlled.

They can do everything but apprehend and not violate any restrictions on troops operating inside our borders.

Alright. But then the argument is moot wrt due process - the apprehension is the point. the apprehension requires due process.

Military not having powers of arrest puts them in a strictly support mode. The arrest is the part we are discussing.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

I have disagreement with extending that border 100 miles inland.  I can agree with that concept at the actual boarder, say the 60 foot Roosevelt Reservation, maybe something larger.  Repelling invaders who try to cross away from official ports of entry is appropriate.

How do we then handle an actual US citizen that doesn't have documentation at that border?

1) Tell them not to lose their passport or I.D.

2) Question them, asked them submit information that would verify they're a U.S. citizen, etc..

[ABX]

1) Tell them not to lose their passport or I.D.

2) Question them, asked them submit information that would verify they're a U.S. citizen, etc..

So, let's say I'm a ranch hand on some bordering land in Texas. I am 5 miles inland just hiking. I do not have my ID on me as I'm not doing any activity that requires an ID, such as driving. I am on private property, not on the Roosevelt Reservation line. I am stopped by a border patrol agent who sees me walking. I have no ID to give and as a civil libertarian, I choose to assert my 5th Amendment rights and not answer any questions (I don't lie, I simply don't answer).

Am I assume to be an illegal > detained and deported on the spot with no due process?