Author Topic: Trump: We must ‘immediately’ return undocumented immigrants ‘with no judges or court cases’  (Read 6862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,200
  • Rule #39
Maybe we're missing what "due process" means in this case.  If the law is that people crossing the border illegally are immediately turned around and sent back across the border, that may be defined as "due process".

@Sanguine

Liberals and open borders folks are using due process to delay the deportation process.  They know that the large majority of illegals in this country won't reappear for a hearing if they are taken before the local judge in whatever municipality they are arrested in and given a notice to appear. 

The Liberals want to use due process to bypass the long established immigration laws of our country in order to effect open borders.

They are abusing select sections of the Constitution in ways it was never intended to be used.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Sanguine

  • TBR Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,324
@Sanguine

Liberals and open borders folks are using due process to delay the deportation process.  They know that the large majority of illegals in this country won't reappear for a hearing if they are taken before the local judge in whatever municipality they are arrested in and given a notice to appear. 

The Liberals want to use due process to bypass the long established immigration laws of our country in order to effect open borders.

They are abusing select sections of the Constitution in ways it was never intended to be used.

I understand, but how is "due process" defined?  By laws, right?
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,200
  • Rule #39
I understand, but how is "due process" defined?  By laws, right?

Yes it's in the Constitution.  I posted the relevant Section and Clause a few posts back.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline ABX

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
No we're talking about people who enter this country illegally.

let's be truthful here.  And they do NOT have due process rights.....


I hate to disagree with you, but in this case they do. For two reasons (outside the fact that this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court in Rasul vs. Bush (No. 03-334) & Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343))

First is the fundamental principle. The Constitutional principle that 'no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law' is a restriction on the government, not on the person.  As Thomas Jefferson stated, our rights are inherent, they are not granted to us by the government. The government is restricted on infringing on those inherent rights. Anyone within the jurisdictional boundaries of the US is protected from government interventionism of those rights.

Secondly and just as important, and something I pointed out upthread, one of the most important aspects of protecting due process isn't to protect illegals but to protect US Citizens who get caught up in the process. Even with the current due process procedures in place, in the past decade, over 20 thousand US citizens have been deported incorrectly. Take out due process from the equation, where anyone can just be picked up and with just the opinion of ICE (or however that process goes) and with no due process, tossed over the border, that twenty thousand US Citizen error is likely to grow exponentially.

Finally, even with all the problems with illegal immigration, do we really want that kind of power in the hands of a centralized government where, with no recourse or oversight, they can strip anyone they choose of due process without even taking the simple determination to see if they are a citizen, and eject them from the country. Think about the slippery slope argument. It may get some cheers and 'ra ra' from people now when they think of illegal immigrants, but what would/could be the consequence of such power in the hands of someone who has less than stellar motivations. What would a Soros minded ruler do with such power? What would a Pelosi do with it?

Is that a liberty you are willing to sacrifice for what you believe is a bit of security?

Offline Texas Yellow Rose

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Native Texan
@Sanguine

Liberals and open borders folks are using due process to delay the deportation process.  They know that the large majority of illegals in this country won't reappear for a hearing if they are taken before the local judge in whatever municipality they are arrested in and given a notice to appear. 

The Liberals want to use due process to bypass the long established immigration laws of our country in order to effect open borders.

They are abusing select sections of the Constitution in ways it was never intended to be used.


Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,490
Is there is any significance in the fact the writers used the word and instead of the word or in the first sentence, which sets the context for the rest of the paragraph?

Yes.  Those are both requirements to be citizens.  But the whole paragraph talks about more than just citizens.  That is why they first used the word citizen for parts then switched to "any person" for other parts.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,200
  • Rule #39

I hate to disagree with you, but in this case they do. For two reasons (outside the fact that this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court in Rasul vs. Bush (No. 03-334) & Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343))

Yup all the bleeding heart Liberals lawyers in the firm that Eric Holder worked for prior to becoming AG.  Their push was to try and force the closure of GITMO and stick those POS Taliban POW's into U.S. courts.

One of the worst rulings ever IMO.  This one even went against the Geneva Conventions on warfare.



Quote
Is that a liberty you are willing to sacrifice for what you believe is a bit of security?

I'm not willing to trade the Liberty or the Security of American citizens for those that purposely violate our borders and flout our immigration laws.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline ABX

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I'm not willing to trade the Liberty or the Security of American citizens for those that purposely violate our borders and flout our immigration laws.

So with no due process, how do you know that who you are tossing are US citizens or not? Who makes that determination?  Even with due process, 20 thousand US Citizens in the past decade have been incorrectly deported. How will you protect US citizens even more with fewer protections in place.

This isn't about 'bleeding heart liberals' (emotional term to manipulate discussion). This is about ensuring a Constitutional check on the power of the federal government. Civil Libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives would be in the same camp you describe as 'bleeding heart liberals'.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,490
What you put in italics applies if the person is

Quote
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

It doesn't apply to those that enter the country illegally...which is a violation of the long standing immigration laws of our country.

We're not talking about grabbing a citizen off the street and kicking them out.  We're talking about people who in one form or fashion bypass legal ports of entry in to the U.S> and live work and operate within our borders illegally.

The ONLY jurisdiction they fall under is that of CBP and that means they are detained and deported.

No.  The language is clear.

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.


The separate use of "citizen" in one phrase and "any person" in another is not one and the same thing.

Citizens have more rights, privileges and immunities.  But any person within our jurisdiction has the right to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the laws.  Due process must be followed for any person.  What that process is can be debated.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,572
Yes.  Those are both requirements to be citizens.  But the whole paragraph talks about more than just citizens.  That is why they first used the word citizen for parts then switched to "any person" for other parts.

Yes, but it never made sense (to me) that they would start the paragraph by referring to clearly defined 'citizens', then restate the same idea in the same sentence but conscientiously expanding the term to refer to anyone who happened to by with our borders.

Offline Sanguine

  • TBR Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,324
Yes it's in the Constitution.  I posted the relevant Section and Clause a few posts back.

No, I think we're cross-talking.  I've got to run, back later.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,780
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
So with no due process, how do you know that who you are tossing are US citizens or not? Who makes that determination?  Even with due process, 20 thousand US Citizens in the past decade have been incorrectly deported. How will you protect US citizens even more with fewer protections in place.

This isn't about 'bleeding heart liberals' (emotional term to manipulate discussion). This is about ensuring a Constitutional check on the power of the federal government. Civil Libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives would be in the same camp you describe as 'bleeding heart liberals'.

Your entire post is BS!  All anyone has to do is get to a Port of Entry and they will get their due process IF they are entitled to any.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,490
Yes, but it never made sense (to me) that they would start the paragraph by referring to clearly defined 'citizens', then restate the same idea in the same sentence but conscientiously expanding the term to refer to anyone who happened to by with our borders.

Paragraphs are not limited to a single noun.  They clearly use "citizen" for specific requirements and "any person" for others.

The first sentence defines who a "citizen" is.  The following separates requirements for "citizens" and others for "any person".  It distinguishes "any person" within the jurisdiction is not automatically a "citizen"".
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,815
I understand, but how is "due process" defined?  By laws, right?

Due process is not for foreign invaders illegally entering our country. They are lucky they are not
shot on sight like would happen in most of their home counties.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,886
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"

If you throw someone out of the country, are you denying them liberty?  Are they entitled to due process?

Not if you toss them out at/near the border.  Once they are in the interior of the country, they have due process rights not to be removed without some kind of hearing.  Exactly what that hearing must be, though, is largely up to Congress.

Offline ABX

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It doesn't apply to those that enter the country illegally...which is a violation of the long standing immigration laws of our country.

We're not talking about grabbing a citizen off the street and kicking them out.  We're talking about people who in one form or fashion bypass legal ports of entry in to the U.S> and live work and operate within our borders illegally.

The ONLY jurisdiction they fall under is that of CBP and that means they are detained and deported.


No.  The language is clear.

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.


The separate use of "citizen" in one phrase and "any person" in another is not one and the same thing.

Citizens have more rights, privileges and immunities.  But any person within our jurisdiction has the right to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the laws.  Due process must be followed for any person.  What that process is can be debated.

That's actually reinforced by the Federalist 46 as well where Madison describes the importance of securing due process for all with the country. This was written in an time when many people in this country were not considered citizens by their respective States (slaves, legal immigrants (although immigration law wasn't as strict at the time), natives, people of various national origins, even women in some States). Madison actually feared (my term) that States and the government can divvy out or restrict rights based on arbitrary citizenship rules so he was very clear that it was 'all people' within the US, not all 'citizens' The ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.

Offline ABX

  • Technical
  • ****
  • Posts: 994
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Your entire post is BS!  All anyone has to do is get to a Port of Entry and they will get their due process IF they are entitled to any.

Take it up with James Madison, not me (see post above).

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,200
  • Rule #39
Quote
No.  The language is clear.

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.

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

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.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,886
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Okay, here's some pretty good language from a 1953 Supreme Court case that addresses the issue fairly well:

Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control. The Chinese Exclusion Case (Chae Chan Ping v. United States), 1889, 130 U.S. 581, 9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 1893, 149 U.S. 698, 13 S.Ct. 1016, 37 L.Ed. 905; United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 1950, 338 U.S. 537, 70 S.Ct. 309, 94 L.Ed. 317; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 1952, 342 U.S. 580, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586. In the exercise of these powers, Congress expressly authorized the President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering or leaving the United States during periods of international tension and strife. That authorization, originally enacted in the Passport Act of 1918, continues in effect during the present emergency. Under it, the Attorney General, acting for the President, may shut out aliens whose 'entry would be prejudicial to the interest of the United States'. 7 And he may exclude without a hearing when the exclusion is based on confidential information the disclosure of which may be prejudicial to the public interest. 8 The Attorney General in this case proceeded in accord with these provisions; he made the necessary determinations and barred the alien from entering the United States.

It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher), 1903, 189 U.S. 86, 100—101, 23 S.Ct. 611, 614, 47 L.Ed. 721; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 1950, 339 U.S. 33, 49—50, 70 S.Ct. 445, 453—454, 94 L.Ed. 616; Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 1953, 344 U.S. 590, 598, 73 S.Ct. 472, 478. But an alien on the threshold of initial entry stands on a different footing: 'Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.' United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, 338 U.S. at page 544, 70 S.Ct. at page 313; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 1892, 142 U.S. 651, 660, 12 S.Ct. 336, 338, 35 L.Ed. 1146. And because the action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive, the Attorney General cannot be compelled to disclose the evidence underlying his determinations in an exclusion case; 'it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government'. United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, 338 U.S. at page 543, 70 S.Ct. at page 312; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, supra, 142 U.S. at page 660, 12 S.Ct. at page 338. In a case such as this, courts cannot retry the determination of the Attorney General. United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra, 338 U.S. at page 546, 70 S.Ct. at page 314; Ludecke v. Watkins, 1948, 335 U.S. 160, 171—172, 68 S.Ct. 1429, 1434, 1435, 92 L.Ed. 1881.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/345/206

Online skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,572
Paragraphs are not limited to a single noun.  They clearly use "citizen" for specific requirements and "any person" for others.

The first sentence defines who a "citizen" is.  The following separates requirements for "citizens" and others for "any person".  It distinguishes "any person" within the jurisdiction is not automatically a "citizen"".

Or the writers, being highly educated men, were just at loath to compose sentences that were awkwardly redundant.

I'm half kidding. I'm not a scholar or attorney, so what do I know.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 10:33:42 AM by skeeter »

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,490
Not if you toss them out at/near the border.  Once they are in the interior of the country, they have due process rights not to be removed without some kind of hearing.  Exactly what that hearing must be, though, is largely up to Congress.

@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?
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,780
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
@thackney show me how and where that applies to people who break our laws to get here.

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.

@txradioguy

And, although I am not a lawyer, I beleive that a sound legal argument can be made that anyone who does not enter the country via a Port of Entry is not in any legal sense in the country.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,200
  • Rule #39
@txradioguy

And, although I am not a lawyer, I beleive that a sound legal argument can be made that anyone who does not enter the country via a Port of Entry is not in any legal sense in the country.

I believe you're right.

The ports of entry have special sections for people claiming asylum set aside at their buildings.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,572
BTW in a somewhat related bit of news SCOTUS just upheld Trump's travel ban.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,490
Or the writers, being highly educated men, were just at loath to compose sentences that were awkwardly redundant.

I'm half kidding. I'm not a scholar or attorney, so what do I know.

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.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf