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

[Suppressed]

No ... because this comes from our lazy ass Congress.   The President has met several times with the Republican caucus but it's not up to a president to write the laws.

Or are you demanding an exception for this President?  Or are you suggesting the President just use his pen?   Which avenue would you like this President to take to satisfy you?

I see.

I see that you see no other path.  No wonder.  Yet another false dichotomy.

LexisNexis, "The Legislative Process":

The President can propose a bill, and even send Congress a Presidential message urging its enactment into law, but he cannot introduce it. The President usually sends draft legislation to Congress with a letter or other explanatory material discussing his reasons for submitting the legislation. Sometimes the House will order a Presidential bill and its explanatory material to be printed as an official House Document.

I know, I know...this President is different, and we can't expect him to do his job...all he has to do is tweet and everything's fine...

[ABX]

I see.

I see that you see no other path.  No wonder.  Yet another false dichotomy.

LexisNexis, "The Legislative Process":


I know, I know...this President is different, and we can't expect him to do his job...all he has to do is tweet and everything's fine...

Plus, weren't we told that this President was a master negotiator and 'deal maker' who would be the only one to be able to negotiate with congress the bills we need?

[Bigun]

Repelling an invasion is not the same as dealing with someone who unknowingly and unintentionally happens to cross the border.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But the problem is we are taking it to the other extreme with removing due process. In your analogy, this would be like letting the cops fire on anyone no matter if they are deemed a threat.

That no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is one of the rights 'granted by our creator' for a reason.

No one takes it to the other extreme other than you.

I made my case about trying to get zero instances of what wrong enforcement of the law will get you.

Where do you get the idea that a policeman is licensed to kill to shoot anyone he chooses?

Now you are just making things up.

[INVAR]

Plus, weren't we told that this President was a master negotiator and 'deal maker' who would be the only one to be able to negotiate with congress the bills we need?

^^^^^THIS!

[Suppressed]

Plus, weren't we told that this President was a master negotiator and 'deal maker' who would be the only one to be able to negotiate with congress the bills we need?

And when he insulted Congress and made enemies, that it was just brilliant negotiating tactics.

[GtHawk]

LOL! Point taken... But then, so do I... 

Then you are an honorary Cuban, congratulations! You will now have all your wealth confiscated by the Cuban government for the good of all!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Fishrrman]

ISailed wrote:
"The US Constitution protects the citizens of this country.
We did not write it for Mexican citizens."

Absolutely correct.
I'm going to repeat the proposed Constitutional Amendment I posted earlier:
===================
This Constitution is intended to protect those who are citizens of the United States.
Those who are not citizens of the United States shall be accorded such protections only as assigned and determined by the Congress of The United States.
===================
This would limit the protections of the Constitution to citizens only.
Non-citizens would receive whatever portions of such protections and procedures as the Congress would specify.

This would work for me.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Repelling an invasion is not the same as dealing with someone who unknowingly and unintentionally happens to cross the border.

 

[txradioguy]

ISailed wrote:
"The US Constitution protects the citizens of this country.
We did not write it for Mexican citizens."

Absolutely correct.
I'm going to repeat the proposed Constitutional Amendment I posted earlier:
===================
This Constitution is intended to protect those who are citizens of the United States.
Those who are not citizens of the United States shall be accorded such protections only as assigned and determined by the Congress of The United States.
===================
This would limit the protections of the Constitution to citizens only.
Non-citizens would receive whatever portions of such protections and procedures as the Congress would specify.

This would work for me.

Someone needs to explain this to Fox's resident "legal expert" Judge Napolitano...he seems to be under the impression ANY person who sets foot in the US is automatically entitled to due process under US law.

[RedHead]

The US Constitution protects the citizens of this country.

We did not write it for Mexican citizens.

Explain how you interpret it otherwise.

Show me where the Constitution says it applies only to U.S. citizens. 

[txradioguy]

Show me where the Constitution says it applies only to U.S. citizens.

Ok.

Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads:

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.

Now...your turn to answer the question @IsailedawayfromFR posed to you.

We did not write it for Mexican citizens.

Explain how you interpret it otherwise.

[thackney]

Ok.

Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads:

Now...your turn to answer the question @IsailedawayfromFR posed to you.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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.

- - - - - - - - -

Note the specific language that goes beyond citizen to apply to any person within its jurisdiction.

All the more reason to enforce our border.

[Oceander]

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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.

- - - - - - - - -

Note the specific language that goes beyond citizen to apply to any person within its jurisdiction.

All the more reason to enforce our border.

You missed the penultimate clause, regarding due process, which isn’t as limited as you state. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We are a nation of laws.  If entering the country illegally is against the law then the Sixth Amendment guarantees them a public trial. 

Only if they are being prosecuted criminally.  If they're simply being returned from whence they came, the Constitution has nothing to do with whether or not they are entitled to a hearing or trial. They can simply be turned around and sent packing.  Due process doesn't apply.  In fact, we've done that pretty consistently for decades for illegals who are observed crossing the border illegally -- they don't get a hearing.

To put it differently, if you trespass onto restricted federal property, you can be removed from that property by force without a trial or hearing of any kind.  It's only if they choose to prosecute you criminally that you get get a trial.  But the right to remove you from that property is not contingent on a criminal prosecution, or even the existence of a criminal statute at all.

One thing to recognize is that if they have no legal right to be in this country, then they aren't being deprived of anything if they're being kicked out. So the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply at all.

[thackney]

You missed the penultimate clause, regarding due process, which isn’t as limited as you state.

Do you mean within its jurisdiction?

How does a state have any authority for any action outside it jurisdiction?

[Bigun]

When illegal invaders are stopped at the border trying to make entry into the country the only due process required is to deny their entry and return them to the country they are currently in.
 

[Bigun]

Only if they are being prosecuted criminally.  If they're simply being returned from whence they came, the Constitution has nothing to do with whether or not they are entitled to a hearing or trial. They can simply be turned around and sent packing.  Due process doesn't apply.  In fact, we've done that pretty consistently for decades for illegals who are observed crossing the border illegally -- they don't get a hearing.

To put it differently, if you trespass onto restricted federal property, you can be removed from that property by force without a trial or hearing of any kind.  It's only if they choose to prosecute you criminally that you get get a trial.  But the right to remove you from that property is not contingent on a criminal prosecution, or even the existence of a criminal statute at all.

One thing to recognize is that if they have no legal right to be in this country, then they aren't being deprived of anything if they're being kicked out. So the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply at all.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Should have read your post before I made mine above!  Right on sir!  Absolutely correct in every detail!

[txradioguy]

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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.

- - - - - - - - -

Note the specific language that goes beyond citizen to apply to any person within its jurisdiction.

All the more reason to enforce our border.

Exactly.  And thank you for fleshing out my answer for me.

[RedHead]

Ok.

Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads:

We're not talking about making them citizens.  We're talking about whether the rule of law applies to foreigners as well as citizens.  It does.

Now...your turn to answer the question @IsailedawayfromFR posed to you.

We did not write it for Mexican citizens.

Explain how you interpret it otherwise.

We wrote the Constitution for the United States.  To provide, among other things, the framework for the rule of law and the administration of justice in this country.  Citizen or foreigner, here legally or illegally, people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States all have rights protected by the Constitution.

But let's take your position.  If the Constitution does not apply to illegal aliens then why arrest them and deport them?  Why not just grab them and sell them into slavery on the nearest farm or slaughterhouse?  The company gets cheap labor.  That would certainly serve as a discouragement for future illegal crossings.  Win/win, right?

[thackney]

Exactly.  And thank you for fleshing out my answer for me.

Heck, I thought I was disagreeing with you.

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

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

[skeeter]

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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.

- - - - - - - - -

Note the specific language that goes beyond citizen to apply to any person within its jurisdiction.

All the more reason to enforce our border.

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?

[txradioguy]

We're not talking about making them citizens.  We're talking about whether the rule of law applies to foreigners as well as citizens.  It does.

No we're talking about people who enter this country illegally.

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

We wrote the Constitution for the United States.  To provide, among other things, the framework for the rule of law and the administration of justice in this country.  Citizen or foreigner, here legally or illegally, people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States all have rights protected by the Constitution.

That's totally barnyard manure.  More times than I can count the Constitution refers to citizens it says nothing about protecting illegals or foreigners.  People subject to the U.S.  rights as stated under the constitution are U.S. citizens.  There are very limited and very specific "rights" foreigners here legally on vacation or work visa's have...but those are negotiated by the foreign secretaries of the respective nations with the United States Secretary of State.

I don't recall SecState working out an agreement to cover people illegally entering our country with our due process protections like you and I are afforded.

Please point to when that happened.

But let's take your position.  If the Constitution does not apply to illegal aliens then why arrest them and deport them?  Why not just grab them and sell them into slavery on the nearest farm or slaughterhouse?  The company gets cheap labor.  That would certainly serve as a discouragement for future illegal crossings.  Win/win, right?

Nice use of the typical Liberal tactic of taking the reasonable and making it the ridiculous.  Alinsky's Rule #6.



You sound like the femalee sock puppet of one of our other open borders gun grabbers here.

[Sanguine]

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".

[txradioguy]

Heck, I thought I was disagreeing with you.

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

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

What you put in italics applies if the person is

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.